Were presidential debates useful?

Honourable Folks, after the three presidential debates which were preceded by running mate debates, a question arises: Are voters any better equipped now to make informed choices on May 20?

I asked a few friends what they thought about the debates. They said, as usual, the candidates came out more clearly and boldly on failures of the current and previous regimes than on how, if given a chance, they would fix the myriad leadership blunders that have made us move in a vicious circle of poverty for the past 50 years.

On some issues such as death sentence and same sex-relationships, the candidates were shamelessly outright dodgy. On growing the economy and reducing poverty, they sounded more like their predecessors, making outlandish promises without indicating where the money would come from.

So unrealistic were pledges on job creation and improving wages for civil servants that their union has vowed to ensure the next leader delivers on the promises made or braces for a miserable life in the next five years.

On the issue of governance, all candidates sounded like the angels, saying they will deal ruthlessly with corruption, bring efficiency into the public sector, declare their assets and liabilities blah, blah, blah..!

It is, therefore, hard to tell from the debates alone who to vote for with the ballot paper and who with our feet! This diminishes the value of the debates in that even the undecided voters will remain undecided.

A stalemate on issues may also diminish the impact of the issue-based campaign of this year, leaving the electorate to base their choices on wrong reasons of the past—ethnicity, regionalism and gifts or bribes.

Already, commentators on social media see Peter Mutharika as amassing most of his votes in Thyolo, Mulanje, Phalombe and Chiradzulu (the Lhomwe belt); Joyce Banda and Atupele Muluzi dominating in the Eastern Region (Zomba, Mangochi, Machinga and Balaka (the Yao belt) and Lazarus Chakwera among the Chewa of Central Region.

They say two developments will affect the choices of voters in the North: the choice of Richard Msowoya (Karonga) as running mate for Chakwera may increase chances of MCP to do well there while the dumping of Khumbo Kachali (Mzimba) by Joyce Banda, replacing him with Gwengwe (Lilongwe) may reduce chances for People’s Party in the region.

The candidates generally lack the verve to rise on the strength of their personalities and promises. Strongholds are built around ethnic affiliations.

Whatever else people might say is the reason for  this, let’s bear in mind that in 2009, the late Bingu wa Mutharika, a Lhomwe contesting on DPP ticket, swept the votes across ethnic and regional boundaries and even managed to defeat the combined force of UDF and MCP.

The same Mutharika in 2004, while riding on the combined Lhomwe (his tribe) and Yao (the tribe of his mentor Bakili Muluzi) only garnered about 36 percent of the votes. He was only saved by our first-past-the-post system otherwise the majority of the electorate wanted change.

Mutharika’s sterling performance in 2009 was due to the fact that he impressed the people during his first term. The economy grew at an average annual rate of 7.5 percent, he championed zero-tolerance for corruption policy and, through the Farm Input Subsidy Programme, he transformed Malawi from a basket case to the region’s bread basket.

Of course, typical of politicians, he betrayed voter trust and pursued a self-serving agenda in his second term. Consequently, he became probably the most loathed president.

If people are to vote on tribal lines this time, blame it on the myopia of politicians such as the late Mutharika who carelessly destroyed bridges for short-term gains.

Was there something positive then emerging from the debate? Yes. The folks I talked to spoke highly of female presidential candidate Helen Singh, saying she was articulate—both in English and Chichewa and thought through her answers.

Pity the only other female presidential candidate—the incumbent, Joyce Banda—chickened out.