The introduction of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) has created a political tug of war between members of Parliament (MPs) and ward councillors which paralyses grassroots’ transformation at bay.
The fund created to solve local development challenges has become politically charged, with the lawmakers and councillors competing to control how it is spent.
As the debate rages on, concerned citizens ask: whose fund is it really?
Picture CDF as a person. It is confusing to watch MPs pull one arm and councillors grab the other, while the target communities watch in confusion.
The Constitutional Court recently upheld the principle of separation of power, prohibiting MPs from participating in council meetings and controlling CDF.
However, the newly elected MPs have amended the Constitution to normalise their control over the fund hiked from K200 million to K5 billion.
The tug-of-war threatens the very purpose for which CDF was created.
CDF was introduced with the promise of bringing quick, small-scale infrastructure closer to the people bridges, classrooms, boreholes, clean water and health posts.
On paper, Parliament allocates the funds, councils implement the projects and communities benefit.
But in reality, this neat model hardly exists.
MPs have long treated the fund as political capital, often presenting projects as personal gifts.
Councillors, empowered by the Local Government Act, insist they are the rightful custodians of local development.
Meanwhile, communities that bear the brunt of incomplete or substandard projects, are rarely the decision-makers.
It is not uncommon to see an MP commissioning a borehole that councillors claim they never approved.
Meanwhile, development is overshadowed by political theatre.
The problem is structural.
On one hand, MPs approve the national budget, so they feel they are accountable for ensuring their constituencies’ funds are spent wisely. On the other, councillors say they are locally elected to manage development as they sit in council chambers and lead local development committees.
The crossfire bare a gray zone where shared authority is blurred and easily manipulated, making the constituency a battlefield as elected public servant jostle for visibility and votes.
A borehole may be drilled in a village not because it is the most urgent need, but for electoral gain.
A classroom block may emerge without an approved budget, left half-built when funds run dry.
This is not decentralisation; it is fragmentation.
The real losers are the underserved citizens who watch as leaders quarrel over a fund that was supposed to improve their lives.
Village and area development committees that should anchor local decision-making are often reduced to spectators in project selection. They are merely called to rubber-stamp decisions already made by politicians.
A country cannot build sustainable development on a system where political actors fight for visibility more than transformative results.
Kenya and Uganda offer useful lessons.
MPs provide strategic oversight, but councils and community committees make operational decisions.
Where this separation is respected, corruption decreases, project quality improves and the community trust the system.
Malawi can achieve similar clarity if it chooses to redesign the CDF governance structure around roles, not personalities.
For Malawi to unlock the real potential of CDF, roles must be clearly defined in law and practice. MPs should approve allocations and monitor spending from a distance.
Councillors should lead local planning and supervise implementation through council structures.
Technical teams within councils must be strengthened so decisions are guided by engineering, not politics.
Communities must regain their rightful place at the centre through mandatory consultation and social audits, ensuring that every project reflects real local priorities.
Transparency is essential. Each constituency should publish its CDF budgets, project lists, timelines and contractors. When citizens know the numbers, politics loses its grip.
CDF is neither the MP’s nor the councillor’s. It is the people’s fund. The big question is not ‘who owns CDF’, but who it should serve.
If the fund continues to be treated as political property, it will remain a tool of patronage and competition.
CDF can become an effective engine of local development if re-aligned to serve the people with clear roles, strong councils, empowered communities and transparent processes.
