The conversation about the relevance of Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC) continues, and this is not by accident but largely a result of its positive impact. HRDC is, without doubt, a nationally recognised name. Many Malawians associate it with demands for accountability, including its advocacy for electoral justice in 2019, which led to the June 20 2020 fresh presidential election and ultimately ushered the Tonse Alliance into power. This shows the coalition’s national visibility in shaping democratic awareness.
HRDC’s role should be seen in the context that democracy works best when there are strong checks and balances. This means having an active civil society like HRDC, a functioning opposition, and an independent media. These groups help to question decisions, promote transparency, and hold duty-bearers accountable. When these pillars are weak, the risk of poor governance increases.
Civil society organisations often speak for citizens who may not have a voice, bringing concerns to the attention of authorities and encouraging people to take part in national affairs.
Our country’s political history offers important lessons. Landslide election victories, like the 2025 Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) win, often show that citizens want change. However, large mandates could be risky if there is little scrutiny. Without an active civil society, a strong opposition, and an independent media, power could become too concentrated. This is why independent voices remain important regardless of which party forms government. Consistent oversight helps to prevent the rise of authoritarian or dictatorial tendencies and ensures that democratic principles are protected.
Therefore, groups like HRDC could help governments perform better. Constructive criticism, policy feedback, and civic engagement could improve decision-making. Governments that accept scrutiny often build greater public trust and strengthen their legitimacy. Around the world, many reforms in governance and human rights have come about because civil society advocated for them. In this sense, civil society groups are partners in development.
At the same time, institutions must evolve. HRDC also needs renewal and rebranding to stay relevant. Rebranding should go beyond appearance. It should include strong internal governance, consistency, and non-partisan advocacy with no regime-change agenda. A refreshed HRDC could rebuild trust among those Malawians who feel it is partisan.
In the same way, debates about HRDC’s visibility at different times should not distract our country from the bigger picture. Civic groups could be stronger in some periods and weaker in others. What matters is their overall contribution. HRDC has in the past mobilised Malawians and raised important governance issues. That record cannot be ignored, even if our opinions differ.
It is also important not to shrink the civic space by attacking civil society groups. Doing so could harm Malawi’s international reputation. Many development partners value democratic freedoms, human rights, and rule of law. Countries perceived to restrict civic space face reduced confidence from partners. This could affect our international support and cooperation.
Furthermore, there is a need for a conducive environment where civil society could operate freely and responsibly within the laws. Genuine engagement between government and civic actors is healthier and more productive. Persistent mistrust has always led to unnecessary national instability. That should not be the path for our country.
We might agree or not, but we still need HRDC, a rebranded HRDC that is credible, focused, non-partisan and not driven by regime-change agenda. For our democracy will grow when power is not only exercised, but also checked. Therefore, the continued existence of HRDC is important to help ensure that the DPP government delivers and remains accountable for the 2030 re-election.
