Winning elections, losing legitimacy

Despite winning, the DPP faces a critical legitimacy challenge that, if not handled well, can be a recipe for their political storm. What should they do?

Peter Mutharika and his late brother, Bingu, are more than just blood brothers. The beginnings of their presidency are strangely similar, almost making them the identical twins of politics.

Take the example of how Bingu began his presidency in 2004. The party that sponsored him, United Democratic Front (UDF), only scooped 1 119 739 votes. That represented 36 percent of the 3 119 645 valid votes, meaning that the majority of voters (64 percent) had rejected him. In what was the antithesis of democracy, the minority had carried the day.

And so is the story with Peter. Of the total 5 228 583 valid votes, Peter has only scooped 1 904 399 votes and that, just like his brother, represents 36 percent. He, too, will take office with a minority vote, as it were.

What is interesting is that Peter’s political journey was born when Bingu—who, after ditching UDF in 2005, had worsened his minority problem even further—was trying to survive the political tumults of a minority government.

As a legal expert who helped in the drafting of the country’s Constitution, Peter was brought into the governance fold to save his brother through developing legal tactics, from the hovering spear of Section 65 and also to calm a gathering storm of impeachment.

The process led to various political backbiting—something which political scientists interpreted as symptoms of a government lacking legitimacy.

The interesting political tale at this point would be to note how Peter returns to the State House, not as an adviser to a struggling brother heading a minority government but a president heading a minority government.

Sixty-four percent of voters voted against him. His party does not command the parliamentary majority it had during the 2009 general elections. Even worse, his party amassed votes mostly in the Southern Region: it came second with a wide margin to Malawi Congress Party (MCP) in the Central Region and third in the North.

With political scientists defining legitimacy as the popular acceptance of an authority, does Peter really have the legitimacy to lead a democratic government like Malawi, which is founded upon the principles of majority rule?

“Although it is true that his victory puts his legitimacy to question, it is, however, not Peter’s problem,” says Dr Boniface Dulani, a political scientist from Chancellor College.

He argues that “legally, Peter has the legitimacy”.

“Our law allows anyone to become a president even with a single plurality. So, from a legal perspective, he has the legitimacy to govern Malawi,” he says.

Dulani, however, underlines that the inherent weakness of the current electoral laws (first-past-the post) could also explain the court battles that emerged regarding the releasing of results of the May 20 polls.

“The difference of votes between the two contenders, MCP and DPP, was quite small. That is why everybody was optimistic of a win,” he says.

Not only that.

Dulani also notes that the current electoral system is failing to produce a ‘national president’.

“These polls have told us that people in the North want Joyce Banda, in the Centre, Lazarus Chakwera, and Peter Mutharika in the South. We don’t have a leader who carries the will of the nation.

“This definitely means that Mutharika will not be looked at well by people from the Central and Northern regions,” he explains

He gave the example of Kenya where, for a person to be elected a president, he/she is supposed to get not less 25 percent of votes in all the provinces. This, he notes, forces every candidate to campaign extensively in all the corners of the country.

The tragedy of failing to produce a national president, continues Dulani, has tremendous effect even on national development.

“It forces candidates to only concentrate on populous regions—for instance, the South and Central regions. In the process, the North goes to the margins of development priority because it has a few voters,” he says.

He recommends a review of the country’s electoral laws. However, the call to have the first-past-the post law changed has not started today.

Catholic University’s associate professor Nandini Patel says the need to review the electoral system was first raised in the aftermath of 1999 elections, with the opposition claiming that the president-elect did not get a majority of votes cast, as it was less than 50 percent.

“This was one of the reasons for challenging the results in court. The opposition’s interpretation of majority was 50 percent plus one. The demand was in line with the Law Commission’s technical review of the Constitution, which recommended the same requirement of 50 percent plus one.

In view of this, the 2007 Constitutional Review recommended that Section 80 (2)—which grants for the first-past-the post—should be amended to read as follows:

“The President shall be elected by a majority of more than fifty percent of the valid votes cast through direct, universal and equal suffrage and, where such majority is not obtained in the first ballot, the necessary number of ballots between the presidential candidate who obtained the greatest number of votes and the runner up, together with their respective vice-presidential candidates shall be conducted until such result is reached

.”

To date, the recommendation continues to lie in the shelves, gathering dust.

Of course, Patel thinks that lack of follow-up actions by civil society and political parties is the reason for the delay. Dulani, however, argues that ruling parties have been reluctant to push for the adoption of the recommendation because the current laws help them to get power easily.

Still, Peter’s DPP—despite sailing through a crack of this weak first-past-the post law to get into power—will have challenges to gain legitimacy in the five years of their governance. That is why Dulani argues that the party needs, in the first place, to acknowledge the weakness in the country’s electoral laws.

“Most Malawians know this problem. It will show a level of maturity on their part if they admit that there is a problem that needs to be solved,” he says.

Of course, in their manifesto the DPP promised that they will ‘pass and implement the recommendations from the constitutional reviews’. Malawians, hence, will be looking forward to the fulfillment of the promises.

But beyond admitting the electoral problems, Timothy Mtambo, executive director of Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR), says if Peter really wants to get support from the people that did not vote for him, he should not practice divisive politics of his late brother.

“No particular group of people should be given leverage and monopolise national opportunities like it used to be during Bingu’s time. He needs to practice inclusive politics,” he says.

Dulani adds that inclusiveness does not necessarily mean coming up with a government of national unity.

“It mostly entails avoiding victimising and alienating political opponents. Failure to do that will mean those that did not vote for him will feel as if they are not part of the nation. This is dangerous for a politically divided country we have become after the May 20 polls,” he says.