Questions over capital hill rule

The Federalism Institute has been convening meetings to discuss a possible switch to federalism in Malawi. The discussions, which feature politicians and campaigners, focus on State-building, decentralisation and constitutionalism as well as legislative, executive and judicial governance in the federal system. Our News Analyst JOHN CHIRWA engages Federalism Institute leader Lusungu Simba-Mwakhwawa to unpack the proposed shift from Capital Hill rule.

What are the virtual meetings all about?

Well, the online discussions aim at supporting informative activities on the federal system of governance agenda. We bring together governance experts to discuss how viable the federal system of government could be in the context of Malawi. It also gives participants an opportunity to learn more about this proposed system and clarify misinformation. It’s not a secret that the concept of federal government to many in Malawi is mistaken for ‘the stupid federation’ founding president Hastings Kamuzu Banda was against. However, the federal system we are talking about is totally different from the federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The idea is to open a space for public debate on governance issues, which will lead to fruitful decisions as to how we want to be as a nation. Let people debate freely. 

Why are you advocating for a departure from the current system of government centralised at Capital Hill?

The unitary system was adopted from our colonial masters, whose ultimate aim was to silence and oppress the local people. This system is no longer applicable in our context since we got independence. It gives room to abuse and it’s vulnerable to manipulation. For example, the current system gives so much power to one person. For our colonial masters, this was applicable because they wanted to control the natives. So, when one wants control the local majority, then unitary is the system. But when one needs decentralisation and development, then federal is the answer.

To make an informed response as to whether the unitary system has benefited Malawi and the citizenry, one only needs to look at the country’s economic standings. We have lagged behind compared to our neighbours in the region.

How do you compare Malawi with other nations in the region then?

After almost six decades since independence, the majority of Malawians continue to grip themselves in clutches of poverty, unemployment and illiteracy. The country remains one of the least developed nations in the world as the majority of its people, about 61percent, live on less than a dollar a day compared to other countries whose citizens live on more than $2.50 to $4.50 per day.

Currently, corruption, nepotism and tribalism are on the rise. The above notwithstanding, the infrastructure framework is in a terrible state. The road infrastructure is in shambles. Poor leadership has exacerbated the political uncertainties and economic instabilities. All these are attributable to excessive abuse of powers by the central government at Capital Hill.

In view of this, federalism is deemed a better alternative to address the country’s governance challenges and bring the government closer to the people. The federal system usually has a constitution that specifies what areas of public life the national government will take control over and the areas of the standalone State governments will control. That way public administration and economics goes smoothly as do Switzerland and other federated powerful economy countries such as the US, Australia, India, Brazil, Malaysia, Russia.

Isn’t decentralisation already a solution to help devolve power and resources from Capital Hill to the grassroots?

Well, it has to be noted that Malawi has been exercising a unitary and centralised system for more than 130 years. The current system dates back to the colonial era. During this period, rulers always preferred the concentration of power and opposed every effort of the devolution of power. During the Bakili Muluzi administration, decentralisation was adopted as the constitutional provision, but no sincere efforts were made to implement such provisions. Even the legal instruments like the Local Government Act 1998 are not properly used to implement the provision made in the constitution. Today, the roles of local councils are not clearly determined; nothing can be done without an approval from the central government-that’s not decentralisation. The issue is simple: One person is in charge of it.

How do you differentiate decentralisation from federalism?

As a matter of fact, there exists no difference of quality between decentralisation and federalism, but only one of degree: decentralisation is reduced federalism while federalism is decentralisation emphasised. Everything has to be decentralised i to protect liberty, moderate the power of government and provide the foundation of an effective government.

In federal law, each State will be given equal budgetary allocation and decide how best to utilise it in their own context. If Malawi was a federal government it wouldn’t be possible for a corrupt businessperson to capture all the States. Only one or few states or one state would have been affected by the corrupt curtails said to have captured the whole country.

Even the fertiliser procurement scam that has affected the whole nation would not have affected the decentralised States. In a federal government, each state would have been mandated to look for its own fertiliser supplier wherever it wants.

Each federal State will have its own laws, police and courts. No one would move a case from a State where it was committed to another. So the delivery of justice is much faster in the federal system. The current decentralisation has failed to provide such a platform. So, what we need is total decentralisation, not partial devolution of power. Federalism brings the government closer to its people.

I am not saying there won’t be corruption, but it will be easy to expose it at an earliest opportunity possible and before it gets out of hand.

Why not just push government to strengthen the unitary system and address decentralisation gaps for good?

You don’t strengthen a poorly designed building and hope you are correcting the situation. Rather, you totally demolish it before it causes death. In the current scenario, the change is long overdue as it has caused so much suffering that could have been prevented. We were supposed to change the system of government between 1993 and 1995 when we changed the Constitution of Malawi shortly after electing the multiparty democracy. It might be due to excitement that we forgot or didn’t bother to include federalism, but that was the right time. The unitary system is a failed system, period! Changing presidents and governing parties has not yielded the much-needed change. We need a different governance model.