Trials and tribulations of the DPP

The other day, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) members were attacked as they were preparing for a Blue parade in the city of Lilongwe. The incident happened at Mbowe Filling Station near Crossroads Shopping Mall. Malawi Police Service (MPS) through its national spokesperson Peter Kalaya said those that attacked DPP functionaries were a group of young people in the blue party’s attire. But condemning the incident DPP claimed the assault was the work of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP). MCP vehemently distanced itself from the criminal activity and argued that the assailants were members of the DPP, but many people believed the DPP narrative.

However, following a near punch-up between two DPP senior members this week, some people may have to rethink their stand on the matter; that MCP may actually have been right to say the incident at Mbowe was an in-house thing. While the controversy over the Mbowe fracas was about the identity of the assailants, this time around there was no question about the belligerents.

Two DPP legislators Mark Botoman and Sameer Suleman are the ones that nearly turned the House into a boxing arena on April 3 this week over the age limit motion which Chitipa South lawmaker Werani Chilenga intends to bring in the House. There is no brainer that the two DPP lawmakers are standing on opposite ends of the proposed motion which some argue is targeting the DPP leader Peter Mutharikawho who has offered himself to be his party’s torch-bearer in 2025.

For their un-Parliamentary behaviour, Suleman and Botoman got their just rewards. Second Deputy Speaker Aisha Adams banned Suleman for one sitting for confronting fellow MPs for the third time and banned Botoman for two days.

Now, this is not the first time that DPP officials have been sparring, both inside and outside the House, developments that have resulted in the pugilists forming two factions: one for the DPP president Peter Mutharika and the other for the party’s former vice-president for the South Kondwani Nakhumwa. I understand the divisions in DPP are more diverse and not limited to the two groups.

The brawling has resulted in Nankhumwa and several others in his faction earning marching orders from the DPP national executive committee. And depending on which perspective one looks at the issues, some say the purging of the fractious members is good medicine for the party. That with the fisticuffs now ended, the party can now sit down peacefully and rebuild. But others are less optimistic. They argue that this is not the time for DPP to start splitting its membership because in an electoral system like ours, where one person has one vote, a political party’s strength lies not only in the quality of its members but more also on the numbers that can translate into votes.

Just for the noting; the age-limit motion suspiciously seems to target one candidate. Although it also proposes to put a cap on the age of members of Parliament, one cannot fail to see that the principal target is the DPP president Peter Mutharika, 83. Why now? The motion is set to be tabled in the House by a DPP lawmaker who has shown his back to the party. The motion is also likely to be unanimously nodded to by MCP legislators who would rather have someone weaker than Mutharika on the ballot. MCP is also suspiciously believed to be sponsoring the motion.

But this is a side issue. The matter at hand is what people will make of the fighting between two senior DPP gurus, right in the House. One thing that is for sure is that the party needs to do much more after kicking Nankhumwa et al out of the party. DPP’s trials and tribulations do not end at erasing the names of these people from the party’s register. DPP’s adversaries are also likely to take advantage of the fighting by the two DPP members and the general malaise and toxic environment in the party to sponsor or support more travails for the party.