Surviving on lies in democracy

The chanting of ‘we want change! we want change!’ in 1992 was a sweet melody to those that had suffered the most from the draconian and iron-fist rule of the 1964-1994 dictatorship.

Thousands were sent to the gallows at the whims of a few to protect a system that served only the leadership and their cronies. Justice was meted out to serve the interests of a handful and people were tired. The wind of change that blew across Africa from the 1980s meant change was inevitable even for Malawi.

People wanted change desperately. But with desperation comes inability to scrutinise the destination the change will take one to. And people wanted anything else other than dictatorship. The outcome of the referendum of 1993 was a reflection of how much people wanted change. People chose democracy. However, there was no emphasis on the negative outcomes of giving power and responsibility universal suffrage accords to an average Malawian voter. If you look closely into the period between 1994 to date, you will wonder if we have been moving ahead at all, or simply engaged a reverse gear.

While democratic principles are universal, the people to exercise them are not the same. We needed a thorough scrutiny on the average voter and the average aspirant for any public office. In our democracy, we assume the average voter has a clear understanding of his responsibility to the nation when electing leaders and that political aspirants are men of character capable of implementing what they promise; accountable enough to the people whenever they fall short. However, this assumption has led directly to where we are today.

Let us analyse the average voter with parameters that larger democracies are not faced with. He has the power to elect a leader; yet he is poor, hungry and everyday lives on hand to mouth. He has a questionable literacy level to fully fathom the complexity of running government. He is brought up in a tribal setting that has a huge bearing on his choices. He is somebody with a mindset that has him believe he is poor and wants to live just for the day and the future will take care of itself. Simply put, he is corruptible and unprincipled. While this is disheartening, it is an argument for another day.

Let us look at the average aspirant for any elected office with reference to larger democracies. Our average aspirant is dishonest, unprincipled and would use every dishonest means to get elected. We have often noticed that campaign promises are far-fetched and incredulously out of touch with the economy. Malawians almost got free shoes at one point!

Political promises are mostly misaligned to economic status, and although knowledgeable people are aware that the average aspirant is selling lies to the gullible, corruptible and unprincipled average voter, there is no law that protects citizens against this treachery. As a result, we don’t get the full benefit and reward of democracy.

Malawians are well-placed to know their problems. The greatest challenge has been source of financing solutions. We need to hold elected officials accountable to the promises they make to the electorate. They have to state what the problem is, how they intend to solve it and where they are going to get the financing to solve the problem. And there has to be repercussions for failure to deliver.

We also need accountability on party financing. If they hide where and how they obtain campaign funds, how should we expect them to be accountable to the people when they get elected? This is the only way we can be sure they are not getting financing on quid pro quo basis! Otherwise, we will keep moving in circles.