Who benefits from federalism?

Honourable Folks,

Karonga Central MP Frank Mwenifumbo was in the news this week (The Daily Times of Tuesday, October 14, p2), giving his views on the issue of federalism.

He was quoted as saying he was in support of the federal system, arguing that there wouldn’t have been Cashgate if power had been devolved. To be precise, the newspaper quotes him as arguing that “Cashgate comes because of too much centralised system”.

I wonder who else thinks along those lines. For sure, mere existence of a federal system did not stop the prevalence of rampant corruption in Kenya and Nigeria. Even in South Africa—another sub-Saharan country where federalism exists—allegations of corruption have rocked not only institutions such as the police but also political leadership including President Jacob Zuma and his nemesis Julius Malema.

Those championing federal system with the belief that it’s an answer to the Cashgate may as well open their eyes to the other side of the coin—the possibility that federalism can also aggravate the prevalence of corruption or Cashgate.

If Malawi eventually becomes a federal State, there will still be folks using or abusing public revenue at the Capital Hill. With decentralisation already in place albeit with acknowledged limited capacity for public finance management, rickety internal systems for accountability and a zero record for using public funds effectively for results, the district, town, municipality or city council becomes another potential epicentre for Cashgate.

Federalism will add to the list of epicentres the seat of the three or more administrative enclaves that will emerge with the governor or whatever the federal boss will be called at its helm. Or is there any sane Malawian out there who believes power at that level will only go to angels and saints?

Which brings us back to the question: What can we realistically hope to gain from a federal system of government? The obvious answer is devolution of political power. Besides the national government, voters in the federal constituencies will have a chance to elect another tier of government which, in theory at least, will be more answerable to them.

Whether this government will be more efficient in bringing development, less corrupt, more transparent and accountable will very much depend on factors other than the structural change itself.

What federalism brings is another level of leadership to worship, feed, pay and provide a motorcade replete with sirens and traffic officers to block the roads when they choose to travel. Only that much power at this level will be in the hands of boys and girls from home.

Essentially we are addressing the question of power sharing, not development per se. We’re saying the current first-past-the-post system, vehemently defended by those demographically endowed to rise by it even if they mess up big time, should have the disadvantaged groups a bit shielded from its cancer-causing ultra violet rays by another layer of government, hopefully dominated by akumudzi, akumangwetu or wakwithu.

On social media, the champions of federalism and the more radical group calling for secession, are forthright in attaching their calls to the need for an equitable sharing of power among the three regions of the country.

They base their call to the right of ethnic/ regional groups to self-determination, arguing that the current first-past-the-post system of electing political leaders gives the electorate in the North a raw deal.

The 2014 outcome which allowed APM to win the presidential election on DPP ticket with a minority 36 percent of the votes, made the MCP, which has its stronghold among the Chewa of the Centre to also call for a federal system.

The catchwords on social media are “enfranchisement” and “self-determination”. Two questions arise immediately: one, if we go the federal system way, will the outcome be greater or less national unity? Two, is there a better alternative to federalism or secession?

I believe as long as those who benefit from the status quo do nothing to ensure political power, the gateway to economic power, is equitably shared, federalism will come to pass regardless of whether or not it is a better system for our country.

Nobody in the free world will ever be contented with the status of being on the receiving end of crumbs even from a benevolent king’s table. When Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa in 1994, he inherited a country in which national unity had been battered savagely by many years of apartheid.

To fix the problem and establish a solid foundation for the rebuilding of national unity and trust—the bedrock for development and the pursuit of happiness—he deliberately shared power with the oppressors he defeated at the ballot.

In Malawi, there’s never been anything as divisive as apartheid. Yet the sense of dissatisfaction with the way power is acquired and used is growing every day simply because of the arrogant indifference of those in power.

APM promised to let go of some of the power concentrated in the presidency. Later, he tried to show his resolve by having lunch with fellow candidates who lost in the 2014 polls.

That is a first in a county where political rivalry is equal to hatred. However, it’s much too little to make a difference. He should take advantage of the agenda he has advanced to unify the country by changing the system from first-past-the-post to 50+1. He should also introduce the proportional representation system, strengthen decentralisation and give back to the people the power to check MPs with the recall provision and the Senate.

That way, federalism which gives a chance to regional leaders to amass power, will give way to genuine democracy which gives the country back to the electorate. The country will also protect national unity while giving decentralisation, a system already introduced, a chance to grow and bear fruit.