This month, members of Parliament ( mps) rose from what could be the last meeting of the 2019-2025 cohort unless an emergency requiring their services kicks in. Our contributor KONDWANI NYONDO caught up with political scientist Ernest Thindwa to assess the highs and lows of the country’s longest-serving cohort of legislators.
Parliament closed two weeks ago to reconvene after the September 16 General Election. How do you rate the MPs’ performance since May 2019?
The performance of MPs collectively can be assessed as a routine show with no significant output to enhance the quality of our democracy and governance outcomes. There are huge performance gaps and queries in all three relevant areas of responsibility—making laws, representing their constituents in the House and providing checks and balances to the government. For instance, in terms of representation, not many MPs can claim to have adequately advanced the interests of their constituents. Often MPs have tended to subordinate constituency and national interests to narrow interests of their political party or party masters on matters of national significance.
How do you rate the MPs’ performance when it comes to their oversight function, one of the crucial areas where they are supposed to be the voice of the people?
This is another area where performance is generally underwhelming. The media has reported a litany of maladministration cases involving government institutions, including corruption. Parliament has either not demonstrated keen interest in these cases or rendered itself impotent to hold the Executive accountable.
What about their strides in terms of making and amending laws for the good of Malawians?
In the areas of passing legislation, none of the numerous key recommendations on changing the legal framework of our governance system by various actors, including the Malawi Law Commission, has attracted consideration from parliamentarians. Most of the laws passed during their term have been necessary, but hardly significant in recasting our governance system to produce different and favourable outcomes in line with the promise to create a better Malawi for everyone.
How would you assess the performance of individual MPs?
It is not an easy exercise to provide an opinion on performance of individual MPs in the absence of reliable data. Constituents will, to a greater degree, provide a potent verdict on 16th September, 2025. But one crucial area is on how they have used the Constituency Development Fund [CDF]. Last year, government raised CDF from K100 million to K200 million, but, in many constituencies, its impact is nothing more than a myth.
Suffice to say, Malawi has one of the highest MP turn-overs in the region [estimated at over 70 percent] and the trend is less likely to change. Drawing on existing domestic electoral data, we can predict with a good measure of confidence that few parliamentarians will be re-elected. The Malawian electoral terrain is increasingly unforgiving, particularly in recent electoral cycles.
What proposal would you put forward to enhance performance of Parliament and its elected members for the good of their constituents? The whole governance framework needs urgent revisiting to guarantee duty-bearers across the three branches of government are incentivised to be accountable and citizens are enabled to effectively demand accountability. The application of the doctrine of separation of powers which normatively gives rise to ‘checks and balances’ embedded in our constitutional setup needs to be optimised so that the Executive is not unduly domineering as is the case currently, but that each branch is capacitated to keep in check the other two branches without necessarily disabling the administration of the day to deliver on its electoral mandate. In that review, efforts should be made to empower citizens to effectively demand accountability from duty bearers. In that sense, a recall provision for legislators needs a new lease of life.
What is your take on some citizens’ suggestions that the run for legislative positions is a road to riches, not in pursuit of public interests?
There are all indications suggesting that not many politicians join politics with a clearly identifiable societal cause. Wealth accumulation, fame and prestige are clearly the primary drivers for the pursuit of political office for many. Holding a political office has become a highly valued currency for one to improve personal fortunes in many aspects of social and economic life.
What should be done to ensure holders of political office prioritise the interest of voters and the nation?
Humans, by their very nature, are self-interested creatures who naturally will tend to primarily promote personal interests for their survival and progress. However, we can tame the inherent instinct of the elected to subordinate the general will to personal interest by strengthening governance institutions. A comprehensive review of the governance system is central. As earlier highlighted, the doctrine of separation of powers needs to be given the rigour and robustness it deserves to deliver widely desirable outcomes which is not the case currently. For instance, it should be made easier for citizens to demand accountability, incentivise political and non-political duty-bearers to supply accountability through, among other initiatives, legal schemes to reward performance and compliance while swiftly administering sanctions with corresponding consequences to under performance and deviants.
The ultimate goal should be redesigning the existing governance framework where, regardless of the party or personalities in power, minimum favourable outcomes are guaranteed. This is critical because, with the current governance system, even change of ruling party or personnel within those parties will not deliver widely desirable outcomes but similar sub-optimal governance outcomes we all have come to reject essentially because the behaviour of the elected is less likely to be altered without meaningful change of the rules of the game in the governance framework.
