Malawi: Of dictators and change management

THE TWISTER

BY BRIAN LIGOMEKA

I am among those who dispute some of the propositions by the originator of the concept of natural selection, Charles Darwin. However, I love one of the statements he made on issues of managing change. Darwin once hinted:“It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones who are most responsive to change.”

I support this view because the world is changing and we need to keep on changing. Surely, The Twister of 1990, is not the Twister of 2000 and neither is he the Twister of 2011. So many things have changed including my lifestyle. While in the past I took pleasure in writing about my own romantic episodes including the one which saw my beautiful wife pacifying two high school girls who were fighting each other near my house, not knowing that the two lasses were actually fighting for me, I no longer take pleasure in recounting those incidents. I find them inappropriate episodes because I do not want my daughter who is at the university and my son who is in high school to be reading about my youth-hood scandals. 

Since as human beings, we are changing and everything else in our environment is changing, Darwin was spot on when he said that it is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones that are most responsive to change.

Issues of change are very crucial amongst leaders because most of the time they spend their time managing change which involve managing people, systems, resources and interests for the greater good of the organization or even the nation as they forge ahead amidst various challenges and threats.

The paradox of life is that while everything else changes, people simply like others and systems to change while they remain the same. Just imagine recently, MCP president John Tembo was all over the place condemning President Bingu wa Mutharika, labelling him a dictator for expelling Vice President Joyce Banda from DPP and excluding her from his cabinet. People were clapping hands for Tembo’s boldness to denounce Bingu’s alleged dictatorial tendencies. The veteran politician urged Mutharika to adhere to tenets of democracy.

Then, just few days later, the same Tembo who was labelling Mutharika a dictator, faced with the similar situation, did the same thing. His party expelled its Secretary General Chris Daza because of his (Daza’s) mere statement that he will gun for MCP presidency in the run up to 2014 polls. Going by their despotic track-records, I am not sure who deserves to be crowned the worst dictator between Bingu and Tembo and who should label each other dictator.

The point I am illustrating is that we are excited to press for change when that change affects others, while as individuals, we resist change. There is bad news for dictators who resist change. The bad news is from Iran's Ambassador to Oman Hossein Noushabadi who says the 21st century will witness the fall of dictators all over the world.

 “The second decade of the 21st century is to witness the end of the lives of the world's dictators,” Noushabadi was quoted by the media at the weekend

The diplomat told the international media that the fall of the dominos began with the ouster of Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and continued with the removal of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's ousted dictator. The Iranian envoy explained that this movement will continue with Ali Abdullah Saleh's escape from Yemen.

Unfortunately, when dictators are intoxicated with power and wallowing with in wealth whose sources they can’t explain, their ears become deaf and eyes turn blind. Nobody can preach to them about the need to embrace political change.

In management and leadership studies, there are numerous theories explaining why people oppose change. Simply put, people are creatures of habit, who naturally incline to fit themselves into a set routine. This perhaps explains why most dictators if they had their way would have loved to die while in power; or alternatively hand over the mantle of power to their wives, brothers and cousins while on their death bed.

It is claimed Egyptian ousted leader Hosni Mubarak had a political blueprint  in which he planned to handover power to his son Gamal while Muammar Gaddafi wanted to be succeeded by his son Saif. Even here in Malawi, the trends are the same. If you think I am lying, let someone challenge me, apart from being Muluzi’s son, what qualification, experience, track-record, political stamina does Atupele have to be harbouring presidential ambitions? What has he done as individual that is worth pointing at that makes him qualify to be the next president? If he was just a mere MP, and not Muluzi’s son, could he be making noise about presidency? The same questions go to Peter Mutharika. If he were not Bingu’s kid brother, would he be a politician harbouring presidential ambitions?

I am not against Atupele and Peter’s ambitions, but sometimes we need to put trends and issues in their correct context. My assumption is that these two have found themselves on the presidential campaign trails because of their father and brother respectively just as Gamal and Saif are in hot soup because of their fathers.

Today, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Ben Ali, Laurent Gbagbo are out of power facing the music because of their failure to manage and accept change as dictated by the democratic wishes of their people. Their bothers and children are also in huge messes because of their entry into politics through the window of bloody kinship instead of using the open door of democracy, choice and fair competition. 

Unfortunately, dictators, never learn the mistakes of their peers. When one dictator with his relations is being ousted by angry citizens through mass protests, another dictator in his myopia assumes that his military and police can prevent regime change. I assume those assumptions emanate from a mental disease called malignant narcissism. This chronic ailment offers dictators false hopes of survival from the strong winds of change. Gaddafi, Mubarak, Ben Ali, Gbagbo are all being haunted because of malignant narcissism, which prevented them from accepting change.

I am just asking myself as to where would the wind of change blow to after dislodging dictators in the Arab world.

Malawi:Of people power and cabinet

THE TWISTER

BY BRIAN LIGOMEKA

Sometimes, I tend to concur with what Sir Winston Churchill, a former British statesman once said: “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

This famous quote highlights that there is actually no such thing as a perfect form of government. Other systems such as socialism, autocracies, monarchies and theocracies are unpopular in many countries because they produce less desirable results than democracy in terms of the promotion of good governance, transparency and accountability.

However, by looking at the way some leaders conduct themselves in democracies I agree with Churchill’s assertion that democracy is also bad, only that it is the least flawed of the bunch. The recent protests and the death of 19 people during anti-government protests certainly show that Malawi democracy is failing the citizenry. It seems we actually vote for our own self-destruction by electing professional liars, stubborn and self-seeking politicians to rule and represent us.

We elect politicians who when they are intoxicated with power waste their energies and time enacting stupid laws just to please their political masters instead of pleasing the people who put them into office. Our problem is that instead of voting for patriotic politicians who have long-term vision for our nation, we vote for those that offer the best handouts and those who promise a long list of lies.

Because of democracy’s emphasis on the majority’s principle, some political hotheads forget that good governance calls for compromise, accommodation, and recognition of differences, which will always be there so long as diversities of mankind exist.

Let me now hail President Bingu wa Mutharika for trimming his cabinet as demanded by the masses who took it to the streets on July 20. The ‘lean’ cabinet shows that the loud voice of the July 20 protestors has been heard.

As I indicated on this column some months ago, it seems Mutharika is a political twister. The justification for describing him so lies in the way he reinforces his grip on power through a strategy of coercion. I am talking about the way he hires and retires members of his cabinet oftentimes, by defying people’s expectations.

The rumour mill has it that when he ascended to the throne in 2004, he discarded a cabinet which his predecessor, Atcheya proposed. He hired a cabinet of his own. Even after being re-elected in 2009, he surprised everyone else by leaving out of cabinet politicians who campaigned for him, by hiring new political comers.

During this week’s cabinet reshuffle, he has dropped some key ministers which were his staunch loyalists. We all know how one Ken Kandodo defended the zero-deficit budget with all his valour while Grain Malunga absorbed all the criticisms on fuel shortages. Anna Kachikho defended the government when local polls were being postponed while Etta Banda was justifying why it was necessary to expel the British High Commissioner to Malawi. What’s the prize for their gallant work during various crises? Exclusion from cabinet!

We have our own opinions on the new cabinet. Some are asking themselves: “Why is Kandodo out of the cabinet? Why has Bingu dropped Malunga, Mayi Kachikho, Etta Banda and Eunice Kazembe? Why?

Regardless of whatever answer you speculate, these politicians are out of cabinet. Simply put, the president has a prerogative to hire and fire.

Bingu’s strategy reminds me of Filipo Maria, the last of the Visconti dukes of Milan in the fifteenth-century Italy. History has it that he deliberately did the opposite of what everyone expected of him.

Filipo during his reign could call a servant and shower him with praises, and the servant would immediately start building castles in the air believing that his promotion was imminent, but lo, few days after showering him with praises, Filipo would then start treating him with extreme scorn.

Fearing the worst, the servant would start fearing to meet Filipo, but to the surprise of everyone the duke would start treating him well again. After weeks of treating him well as a valuable servant, he would just out of the blue rebuke him and kick him out of the castle.

The lesson was that best way to handle Filipo was to avoid assuming that you know what he wants or trying to deduce what will please him. What one had to do to survive was just to dance to his tunes of unpredictability.

A third century BC Chinese philosopher Han Fei Tzu once intimated on unpredictability: “The enlightened ruler is so mysterious that he seems to dwell no where, so inexplicable that no one can seek him. He reposes in non-action above and his ministers tremble down.” The point is unpredictability is one of the successful strategies in politics, if not used excessively and abusively.

One strategist once observed: “Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behaviour that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off balance and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves.”

I think Mutharika’s cabinet reshuffles can best be described as the being based on the use of coercive power.

“Of all bases of power available to man, the power to hurt others is often most often used, most often condemned and most difficult to control…the state relies on its military to intimidate nations, or even its own citizens. Business rely upon the control of economic resources….while the church threatens individuals with loss of grace,” that’s D. Kipnis speaking in his book Powerholders on coercive power.

So just as the church threatens its followers with loss of grace, the president uses his “prerogative to hire and fire” to decide who is supposed to be in the cabinet.

It is therefore a waste of time trying to figure out why some key figures have been dropped from cabinet because there will be so many political hypothesis generated, but the Constitution simply says that the hiring and firing of cabinet ministers is the president prerogative, and hence nobody should assume that he or she is a life-minister.

Ex-ministers who are angry and unhappy over their dismissals from cabinet, should just take solace in the words of wisdom from Baltsar Gracian (1601-1658): “Do not commit yourself to anybody or anything, for that is to be a slave, a slave to every man. Independence is more precious than the gift in exchange for which independence is lost. You should prefer many people to depend upon you, rather than that you should depend upon single person. Above all, keep yourself free of commitments and obligations – they are the device of another to get you into his power.”

Onus to respect human rights rests with Malawi government

THE TWISTER BY BRIAN LIGOMEKA

The writing is on the wall. Malawians are discontented with the current administration and its failure to address pertinent issues raised in their July 20 petition. That the people's efforts to hold a peaceful vigil are also being frustrated will only make matters worse.

The poor turnout at the president's whistle-stop tours in various townships punctuated by some ruling party officials being booed at, jeered at are all tale-tell signs that many people are getting fed up with an administration that has lost direction and respect for the people who voted them in power.

The people's demands are straight forward. Malawians will not allow any leader in the current political dispensation to throw away their Constitutional rights. It does not matter that those in power are capable of commandeering the trigger-happy police officers to gun down unarmed protestors in the streets as it happened during the July 20 protests.

The Malawi Human Rights Commission findings have just confirmed what most Malawians already knew that many who died on July 20 died from gun shots. Of the 19 who died, 15 of them died from gun wounds. Everyone knows who was carrying guns on that fateful day – our own police.

Now as people are planning to hold peaceful demonstrations on August 17, the authorities are back at it issuing threats. In his whistle-stop tours, president Mutharika had no kind words for the organizers of the demonstrations. It is quite evident that, Mutharika and his advisors have lost touch with reality. Whether this is because the president is getting bad advice or that he is ignoring good advice, only he knows.

Perhaps, it's time for Mutharika to do some serious soul-searching by asking himself why is it that all of a sudden the peace-loving Malawians who voted for him en masse are suddenly turning their backs on him. Maybe before getting into the streets and making his outbursts during his road shows, he needs to find out how and where he lost the people's confidence.

Why are people just ignoring all the threats and pleas he is making? Mutharika should be asking himself why Malawians are insisting that come what may they are ready to protest their discontent in the streets, when all along they have been regarded as a docile people.

To try and shut the people up or to use the state machinery to intimidate them will only make matters worse. It is primitive politics to think that people can be threatened into submission while their human rights are being trampled upon. In a democracy, leaders only have their legitimacy to rule in as long as they also respect the rule of law and uphold good governance.

If government can just listen and address the concerns of the people, nobody would talk of protesting or holding a vigil. Intead of cherry picking what demands they will respond to, why is government not listening to the petitioners demands and addressing them appropriately, rather than waste time with empty outbursts and threats.

We wonder why it is so difficult for government to just scrap off bad laws like Section 46 of the Penal Code and the Injunction Law. Instead they are busy trying to justify laws that are clearly designed to put Malawians under the yoke of repression.

Those in power need to realize that no amount of belligerence, arrogance, threats and insults will intimidate Malawians from reclaiming good governance which is already theirs by law.

As Malawians wish to be expressing their Constitutional right of peaceful assembly, association and expression, the onus is on the government to ensure that democracy as a system of government works and human rights and the respect of human dignity and freedom is respected. Any attempt by those in power or their agents to prevent the citizenry from expressing their rights as enshrined in the Constitution will only ferment further discontent and fuel more protests and vigils.

Malawi: Economics of a drunk

THE TWISTER

BY BRIAN LIGOMEKA

Once upon a time, The Twister loved to enjoy his favourite beer so much; perhaps much better that one notorious dictator who one day took pleasure of drinking beer with street vendors in a stadium when a stone-throw away, people were mourning the deaths of freedom fighters.

In those olden days, The Twister would spend K50,000 on expensive beer in an up-market bar at  night and start regretting the following morning. His groaning over his impecuniousness never helped him in any way. It was economics of a drunk. In economics of a drunk, a dipsomaniac becomes wiser when he is totally broke after spending all his monies on alcohol - not with street vendors in a stadium-  but rather with pretty damsels  in an exclusive bar.

While The Twister dropped the habit years ago, it seems some policy makers practise economics of a drunk to the fullest. This week’s devaluation of the kwacha is more or less the application of economics of a drunk.

 Let me twist the mater in this way. While President Bingu wa Mutharika’s economic policies previously were swinging from the foundations of Keynesian principles on one end to those of monetarist philosophies on the other end, his intractable obsession for one or two assumptions of monetarist theory has attracted lots of criticisms with other economist failing to predict where he is leading this country to in terms of economic destination.

His previous resilient stand on the value of the Kwacha that it should not be devalued despite frantic admonition from different economists and the International Monetary Fund portrayed him as a cunning student of monetarist theory who incontestably believe that monetary policy should be firmly manipulated as the best way of shaping the economy because money supply affects macroeconomic outcomes such as Gross Domestic Product growth, inflation, unemployment, and exchange rates.

While in free market economies, central banks are charged with the duty of being the hub of monetary policy, here at home Mutharika never resisted insisting on his monetarist views in form of executive orders. His stand on the value of the Kwacha was a good case in point.

Mutharika stand has always been: “The devaluation of the kwacha will only benefit a few individuals, and they are non-Africans who are here. They want to push this proposal because what they did was to go to the market and convert their kwacha to US dollars and kept them. Suppose we devalue to K180 per one US dollar, they will quickly offload their dollars and they will make huge sums of money. These are the ones to benefit.”

Mutharika’s view has always been in tandem with what some monetarists argue that an increase in the money supply will affect mostly prices, not output. Like Mutharika’s thinking, monetarists’ view is that increase in the money supply simply raises inflationary expectations and as a result push nominal interest rates up. Generally speaking, monetarists believe in fixed money supply targets, or in regulation of how much to change the money supply. This is slightly different from the beliefs of Keynesian economists who have faith in more flexibility or discretion instead of being tied to rigid rules and regulations.

While Keynesians would advocate for discretion and flexibility on how we value the Kwacha, Mutharika’s views are nothing but bringing the monetarist assumptions to detrimental extreme.

 The Twister believes that besides our diplomatic gaffes, human rights abuses and violation of our own Constitution, one error of judgement the current administration is making is that of implementing some assumptions of monetarist thinking without considering our context as one of the not-so-rich countries in the world. Our obsession for monetarism, which is persuading those in power to keep on emphasising the role of government in controlling the amount of money in circulation by, among others, tweaking exchange rates is certainly annoying some bilateral and multilateral partners who believe that our stand on the value of the Kwacha is wrong and therefore cannot support us financially.

Had we listened to both local economists and our bilateral donors on the issue of Kwacha value when our economy was ‘booming’ the devaluation would have a positive impact, but like a drunk who becomes financially wiser when he is penniless, the recent devaluation will have some repercussions. The issue is simple - the positive impact of devaluation usually relies on the state of the economy and hence the ill-timed devaluation will lead to inflationary pressures.

The Twister is not alone in doubting the benefits of an ill-timed devaluation. One commentator Ben Sodza shares my fears. “Devaluation of currency for an ailing economy without production capacity for all its consumer goods is bad news because country relies on imported goods to supply its consumers. This means paying in foreign currency to procure the goods. If an economy can manufacture all its consumer goods and have surplus to export, devaluation becomes a joy stick that one plays with to manipulate sales of exported goods to dominate the external market; and in such case the local people are not affected.”

Sodza quizzes: “What does this devaluation affect and what else is devalued at the same time?”  He quickly points out: “All banks saving devalue translating into loss of purchasing power.  Pensions on all retired devalue [which also translates to reduction] of buying power.”

What else is affected? Pension contributed funds devalue, lowering standards of pensions, life cover Insurances devalue and premiums go up.

Furthermore, people in the village and unemployed masses suffer because their money loses buying power and people are in turn impoverished; and Sodza further adds: “Not all employers respond with salary adjustments to match devaluation [as the result] salaries lose value.

The point is that this poorly-timed devaluation may end up being inflationary and will not add much-need benefits to the economy. It is economics of the drunk who becomes wiser when he is totally broke instead of being wiser when his is financially sound. In our case, we seem to see the benefits of devaluation when the economy is plunging into a crisis and we will not reap the benefits that well-calculated devaluations generate. Devaluing the Kwacha when our tobacco is doing so poorly at the Auction Floors, the prices of cotton are also low, IMF, Britain, Germany and many other donors have closed financial taps is just like economics of a drunk of becoming wiser when one is broke.

Malawi: Behind every dictator is an arrogant First Lady

THE TWISTER

By Brian Ligomeka

The arrest of former Ivory Coast autocrat Laurent Gbagbo in the subterranean vault of his residence, hunkering down with his wife was a reprehensible but pertinent finale to his fiendish attempt to hang on to power.

The disgusting image relayed to the world of an arrested Gbagbo with a soiled vest, sopping with sweat, was beyond belief. Nobody, except for his minions, had sympathy for him because it was obvious that he was reaping the fruits of his autocracy, notoriety and arrogance.

The ugly scene of Gbagbo debacle underscored the feebleness of democracy on this continent. The presence of Simone, Gbagbo’s wife in the foxhole demonstrated how an avaricious first lady helped her power-intoxicated husband in destroying Ivory Coast. The role of Gbagbo's first wife, Simone in egging on her spouse to treat with contempt voices of reason and political wisdom from all the corners of the globe is well-chronicled.

History has it that after the rebels captured part of Ivory Coast in 2002, Simone Gbagbo, then parliamentary leader of her husband’s party, incited Ivorian women to deny conjugal rights to their husbands who supported the making of peace with rebels who had taken control of half of the country. This is why fingers have been pointed at her for influencing her husband [a professor] to reject the outcome of the presidential outcome.

Just like her husband, Simone never wanted to accept the painful reality of life that time was up for her. She was still stuck in the opulence of State House life. The defeat of her husband in polss saw her world crumbling and she had serious problems in reconciling with the fact that she would no longer be the First Lady.

With Simone’s attitude, one cannot be blamed for concluding that “behind every dictator man is an arrogant woman" and if the dictator is the head of state it does not go without saying that the arrogant woman is the first lady.

If you see some old presidents making idiotic and dubious decisions aimed at just stoking their egos at the expense of their citizenry, do not be surprised. It can be the result of the pillow talk of their wives.

Though in most countries, first ladies do not don’t hold any constitutional offices, their sheer luck of being betrothed to those in power, confers them the privilege of having power thrust on them. During my good old days at St Patricks Secondary School at Mzedi in Limbe someone used to say, “Galu wa a mfumu ndi mfumu ya agalu” which can literally be translated as: “The chief’s dog is the chief of dogs.” The adage simply says that the chiefs confer some-kind of status on everything that is in their household.

That explains why it is a mistake to assume that first ladies are just mere state house flowers or bedroom firebrands for quenching sentimental thirst of presidents; because in reality through their romantic proximity their bedroom talk sometimes translates into policies. This means that if the first lady is materialistic, hot-headed and arrogant, she will succeed in creating a monstrous dictator whose citizens will be marching in the streets against him and his policies on weekly basis.

Sometime back I enjoyed reading an article in one of my favourite magazines,The Economist,  which wrote that first ladies, especially those on this continent, brandish monstrous “bottom power”.  

In Nigeria, a story is told of one Stella Obasanjo who in May 2005, ordered a police raid at the Midwest Herald, a Lagos-based newspaper which had published a story headlined ‘Greedy Stella,’ linking her to the questionable sale of government houses to her relatives.

When the Nigerian police were quizzed on the raid, they admitted to have acted on orders from above. The “powerful above office” was that of First Lady Stella.

Stella was in the limelight for her patronising behaviour which saw her at one point banning wives of state governors from addressing themselves as ‘Her Excellency’.

And in the same nation of Nigeria one cannot forget what happened after President Sani Abacha’s death. His widow Mariam was arrested in scandalous circumstances, as she fled with suitcases stuffed with US dollars.

With such scandals, The Twister does not blame a Kenyan journalist Emeka Mayaka for branding some African first ladies as “opportunists who have used their positions to amass wealth for themselves through questionable charitable organisations.”

How I wish the Kenyan journalist knew that some first ladies are so greedy that they even accept to be receiving monthly salaries including housing allowances for charity work. Oh my foot! Why receive a housing allowance when you already reside in State House?

While in Malawi, our women who have been serving at the State House Mama Cecelia Kadzamira, Anne Muluzi, Shanil Muluzi and late Ethel Mutharika never dared to poke their noses into politics, it seems we have our own Queen Dzeliwe Shongwe, ‘the Great She Elephant [of Swaziland.’ For starters, Queen Dzeliwe Shongwe was a senior wife of King Sobhuza II of Swaziland. She was one of the greatest beneficiary of propinquity to a powerful husband.

With nice, sweet pillow talk, the Queen Shongwe asked her husband to name her a joint Head of State in 1981 and King Sobhuza II did just that, but later revoked it.

With Bingu wa Mutharika declaring: “I will smoke out my critics,” and his wife Callista mumbling: “Let the civil society go to hell. Villagers don’t need fuel and forex”, The Twister keeps on asking himself how can someone in their right frame of mind lie that people in the villages do not need fuel. Is it ignorance, arrogance and sheer political blindness or opulence intoxication? Who in this country does know the ‘fuel’ needs of the villagers? If there is one, he or she must be coming from another planet.

The Twister takes in the solace in the fact that 2014 will be the judgement year and assumes that rigging through pre-ballot stuffing, result altering through tabulation and diversion of telecommunications lines will not be possible.

The article first appeared in The Daily Times of Malawi

Of Malawi leader's public lecture, arrogance and empty gimmicks

THE TWISTER

BY BRIAN LIGOMEKA

The political pot is boiling. The civil society organisations are planning to hold demonstrations to protest against poor governance and economic woes dogging the country. Poor economic management, the obvious putrid fruits of decayed fiscal and monetary policies are manifesting themselves through fuel shortages, forex scarcity, high unemployment and poverty.

The once over-hyped moniker of our leader as an economic engineer, which we were persuaded to accept as true during yesteryears has turned to be a political falsehood.

I was on a fuel queue with my son this other day and he turned to me and asked: “I thought people were alleging that Atcheya was uneducated and his handling of economic issues was shambolic, why is it that during his ten-year reign, Malawi never experienced fuel and forex shortages as is the case now when our country is being led by a professor and an economics PhD holder?”

Honestly speaking I had no answer. All I did was to hit back at him with suggestions: “Go and ask your lecturer if education can remove political arrogance, myopia and egocentrism. Find out from your lecturer what happens when you are very advanced in age in terms of your reasoning capacity and your attitude towards others. Ask your lecturer about the age at which one starts showing signs of being senile?” Then you will have an answer.

If you don’t find an answer from your lecturers, then read an investigative audit and management report of the special committee of eminent persons on the operations of Comesa part of which declares:

 “The relations between Comesa and its institutions, and Member States are restrained because of the demeanour and arrogance of the Secretary General. He has created more misunderstanding and hatred in the institution and member States than he has made friends.”

The report laments in part that its Secretary General did not fully utilise his directors for decision making as a team as he was fond of summoning them either “to lecture to them, rebuke or impose his will on them”.

 “The net effect has been to reduce his directors to implementers of his directives which by and large breach the existing legal instruments. Indeed, he uses them to rubber-stamp his decisions,” reads the Comesa report in part that ended in that Secretary General being fired.

I told my son that if he reads that Comesa Report he would understand why Malawi is embroiled in political and economic quagmire; and why this country is at risk of degenerating into a dynasty.

I made those suggestions to my son because I did not want to tell him that while high education makes some become better citizens, the same high education turn others into crazy, arrogant, egoistic and nepotistic individuals.

The point is that Atcheya had his own basketfuls of political and economic goofs including the third term psychosis, but the performance of the current regime leaves a lot to be desired. Malawians are now bearing the brunt of the dictatorial, disastrous and tactless leadership whose consequences are the fuel queues, enactment of idiotic laws, the freezing of donor aid and many other idiosyncratic gaffes. Just imagine at the peak of the current diplomatic gaffes, fuel and forex shortages, someone believes that the best solution he can offer to Malawians is to stage a public lecture which has already been snubbed by the opposition and the civil society as cataclysmic and contemptible.

The current crises do not need political gimmicks in form of public lectures, neither do they need public lies as answers. They need real solutions and not empty talk and arrogant excuses sandwiched with distorted Pan Africanism philosophy and political sovereignty postulations that ignore the fundamental benefits and costs of globalisation and good governance.

Of dictatorships and dynasties in Africa

THE TWISTER

 BY BRIAN LIGOMEKA

The Twister is keeping an eye on the political developments in North Africa and Middle East with keen interest. The sudden and swift collapse of autocrats in that region is astonishing and remarkable because just like the rest of dictators, we have on this part of the continent autocrats in the Arab world were egoistic, cruel, corrupt and extravagant. I never anticipated this political trend in that region.   

What I know is that some dictators in the Arab world took pleasure in depriving the populace of their basic human rights including freedom of the press and academic freedom while through nepotism they enriched a small minority of their minions, ethnic citizens and political puppets at the expense of national development.

Even when the winds of change started blowing in those dictatorial regimes, some despots attempted to hold their grip on power by using all forms of terror and repression, but their tactics never worked at all. Perhaps we need to go back in memory lane by looking at how mass protests resulted in the downfall of Tunisian leader Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

The Tunisian popular revolt amazes me because it was triggered by a mere vegetable vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi. The genesis of it was a police officer who slapped him in broad daylight and confiscated his vegetables.  The young man could not take that humiliation and he set himself on fire. Unfortunately for the dictator of Tunisia, the 26-year-old vendor died on January 4 and his death fanned a popular revolt whose consequence is well known.

Inspired by how Tunisians kicked out their dictator who had oppressed them for 23 years, Egyptians followed suit and toppled Hosni Mubarak within three weeks. Mubarak’s downfall reminds me of how Indonesian dictator Suharto who ruled for 31 years was also shown the political exit in 1998 after mass protests. The revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria demonstrate that when people are tired of dictatorial rule, they can topple their leaders.

While in North Africa and Middle East revolutions are working miracles, we seem to have a different chapter on this part of Africa. We seem to tolerate dictatorships and even allow them to degenerate into monarchs where heads of state transfer their executive power to their off-springs and relatives.

Congolese allowed Joseph Kabila to inherit the presidency and run their country from his dad Laurent Kabila.Autocrat Gnassingbe Eyadema, who ruled Togo with an iron fist for 38 years, died in power and his son Faure Gnassingbe Eyadema took over power and revolved into a dictator.  In Gabon, Omar Bongo after four decades of being in power, his son Ali-Ben Bongo took over power from him .

The point I am driving at is that it is possible to stop relatives of dictators from taking over power from their dads and uncles, however that is only possible when you are not in deep political slumber.

Relatives of dictators can easily take over power from their dads and uncles in a political environment where the opposition is weak and citizens are docile. As far as The Twister is concerned, dictators must be stopped in their tracks regardless of their rhetoric or their exaggerated achievements which are obviously financed by donors and taxpayers money. Never dare to ask The Twister which dictator on this part of the continent is grooming to have his relative as the next president, because he does not have a ready answer.