On opportunism, political survival
Politics sometimes is loosely defined as the struggle for the control, determination and distribution of a country’s resources.
Going by this definition, one can understand why politicians spend a lot of their time and money outdoing each other, trying to convince people to vote for them so that they form the next government.
Resources in this light can be described as possessions of quality which a nation has at its disposal. Whereas some enter the race with good intentions, thus, to uplift people’s livelihood through various developmental programmes, others join politics to serve their selfish ambitions.
When Malawi attained multiparty politics in the early 1990s, political leaders created an air of mistrust between members of the ruling side and those in opposition.
This was exacerbated by the government side’s public utterances that those that support its agenda stand to benefit from developmental projects in their constituencies. Being in control of the country’s resources gave them the illusion of thinking they could sideline others from sharing what belonged to all.
Section 12 (1) and (2) of the Malawi Constitution (1 9 9 4) buttresses this point by plainly stating that power to govern derives from the people of Malawi and shall only be exercised in order to advance their interests.
However, politics, being what it is, gave our leaders the platform to categorically inculcate in people’s minds that development favours those in power.
Some members of Parliament left their parties in opposition and joined the government benches in search for development of the areas they represented. Now the question is, did the sought after development really take place in the areas of those that changed sides? Were such moves warranted for the affected areas to register any changes?
Looking back, one would realise that such sentiments were mere political rhetoric meant to woo greedy representatives in the House to toe the government line. A case in point here is that of the alliance between the then ruling United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Alliance for Democracy (Aford).
Here, a working coalition was entered into by the two parties and some Aford members were given ministerial posts while others were given lucrative positions in government. A position of second vice-president was quickly created for the Aford leader, too, but the association was short-lived.
The relationship went sour and the parties parted ways, but some Aford members clung to their ministerial positions claiming national duty call. A classic example of how opportunistic and crafty people can be for political survival purposes. It needs be said loudly and clearly, that you need not be a government hand clapper for your area to taste development of any kind.
The mere fact that your area has a development need and that you have forwarded that to the attention of the floor, objective decisions should be made to address that need. We all belong and should, therefore, have a share in what our country can offer.
It is said that a servant cannot be greater than the master and in politics, voters are the masters. Development should not be politicised because by the end of the day, people who vote are the ones that suffer the most while those they entrusted to bring about change in their areas benefit.
It is only by equitably spreading the country’s resources on a need-based formulae that we can eventually do away with opportunists and register tangible growth as a nation. God bless Malawi.
The author likes to comment on social issues.
