Dear Folks,
This is my perspective good folks and have a good day!
In mid 2008, most poor countries panicked with rising food, fuel and fertilizer prices, Malawi seemed untouched. The food, fuel and fertilizer prices stabilized but still at high prices in 2009 and 2010 with a further rise in 2011. This time around, Malawi's resilience seems to have worn out and the effects of the global economic downturn can be visibly felt locally. The current wave has not only affected Malawi, as I understand Uganda, Kenya, Mozambique to name a few are also in the same boat.
In some countries, the effects are not so conspicuous because their governments are increasing spending to off-set the effects, some that are eligible are able to access short-term stabilization funds from IMF, others have been graced with better donor sympathy for increased assistance. On the other hand, Malawi braved herself with an austerity budget, that is, "we-will-pay-all-our-bills-with-our-own-means". Zero-deficit budget is always an anticipation of any government that seeks economic and political sovereignty. However, it has to be developed in a participatory manner, with the values, costs and benefits shared across all the stakeholders who should be clear of the intentions and timeframe of the austerity measures. Without such communication, speculations ensue and so do the unnecessary diverse views, some disenchantments and chaos. Most long-term dictators like of Cuba, North Africa, China, North Korea, and Middle East have survived local and foreign pressure by enlisting local legitimacy of their values (whether viewed externally as good or bad).
In such countries, there is a positive brainwash that our leaders will always do what is best for us. This stems from their religious beliefs, ethnic uniformity that they are one clan, or past tragic experiences that made the people to realize the values of acting together to fight common external enemy. As such, it is very difficult for foreigners to integrate as they are always suspicious of them. They invest considerably much more on political intelligence, mostly geared at protecting the leadership. Leaders often stay long and often transfer the leadership to the family relations. There is , therefore, very little room for foreign political intervention such as sponsored opposition. Economically, these countries tend to grow faster and national cake is share fairly equally without much disparities along any form of lines. Internal revenues are high because governments do the whole business and collects the whole profits. Due to poor relations outside, their leaders rarely, and if any, cautiously externalize national wealth for fear of being frozen. They tend to have higher internal economic satisfaction that also helps maintain political stability. I do not see Malawi becoming one of these countries!
One reason is that Malawi accepted democracy, as with the former, it also has the costs and benefits. One of the costs is the cost in monetary terms for running elections every five years for which the benefit is the "purchased freedom of electing new leaders". The other cost relates to the risk of replacing an experienced leader from government with a new-comer after the constitutionally mandated period of two terms in office. This has the benefit of bringing into the government driving seat of new blood. The other cost relates to creation and maintenance of democratic institutions such as the Parliament, the Judiciary, Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Office of Ombudsman, Human Rights Commission, etc., whose benefits are their services. These institutions are theoretically aimed at controlling the abuse of the public interests by the elites. To what extent these are national assets rather than just liabilities depends on their effectiveness.
In democratic states leaders do not have peace of mind and real development suffers. In the first term of office, new-comers are under pressure to learn quickly and implement some development projects that will enable them show palpable results during the campaign for the second term. During their second term, the issue of succession steals the whole show. As a result, long term development projects that transcends the temporal bounds (term limits) of one leader to mature are often sidelined. This was part of the reason why post-independence dictators did (and any current ones) achieve much more infrastructure development than the short-termed democrats! By dictators I mean a form of government not the act of dictatorial tendencies that may exist even in multiparty democratic government.
Multiparty democracy can also be plagued by politics of patronage that suffocates the whole essence of the system into dictatorship. This is especially so when the ruling has majority in the house of representation (parliament) where the majority tend to oppress the views of minority. The democratic institutions while being funded by the tax-payers money tend to work to the service the elite interests. Cliques form around the central leader that s/he gets more socio-political comfort than the situation on the ground demands. This is no crime since democracy is a game of numbers. If such a scenario happens, those feeling left out tend to seek other avenues to get their message to the central leader. They revert to the traditional systems, the traditional leaders, the church, civil society organizations (CSOs), that are empathetic with them. Even though most CSOs are externally sponsored groups and do not have the actual locus standi (constitutional geographical jurisdiction), they offer some platform for informing the central leader of the divergent views. It's upon the leader to listen and reflect.
Reflecting on Malawi’s current public show: the 2011/12 Zero Deficit Budget was not adequately discussed both inside and outside the parliament. The austerity measures inherent of it faced serious opposition from the general public. CSOs and other groups have been calling on the government to explain the long standing shortages of foreign currency and imported goods, chiefly, fuels, there has not been adequate response. The 20 July 2011 demonstrations were a peaceful petitioning of the same. The demonstrations were constitutionally legal and were expected to be allowed and accorded full protection.
Unfortunately, the demonstrations did not end peacefully and after two days of protests, 18 deaths, 98 serious injuries and 275 arrests were reported in media.
This is my perspective good folks and have a good day!
