Speech at a meeting on Malawi on 13th November 2018 organised by the Norwegian Council for Africa and the Development Fund, where the musician Faith Mussa and the country director of the Development Fund in Malawi, Victor Katchika-Jere, also spoke.
I have been asked to speak about the long lines in Malawi’s development and on how politics works. Which I am glad to do. I will start by quoting the Cameroonian Achille Mbembe – arguably the greatest African thinker today – who talks about the longue durée, ‘the long duration’. “What is missing in today’s discussion of Africa,” Mbembe says, “is the time perspective and the complexity.” Mbembe will visit Norway for the first time, I think, and will speak at Litteraturhuset on 4th December.
Some people talk about the Malawi Puzzle. There are two puzzles, at least. The first one, which is most often asked, is:
– Why is this country among the poorest in the world, when it has neither been through war nor big natural catastrophes?
In his book The Bottom Billion, the British economist Paul Collier presented a number of traps that he argued explains why so many countries still have problems in getting out of poverty. One of them was the inland trap, how many countries are disadvantaged because they do not have easy access to the sea.
Malawi is one of them. In Nyasaland a hundred years ago, European settlers never managed to create a thriving economy, like in South and North Rhodesia. To transport goods out of the colony on the lake and the rivers was too cumbersome and far too expensive. And it was through Portuguese land. There was no easy railroad access, either. The result of this lack of economic development was that hundreds of thousands of Malawians went to Rhodesia, South Africa and Tanganyika for work. In 1948, nearly 50 per cent of able-bodied men were estimated to be abroad.
They liked the wages in Rhodesia and South Africa, which were several times higher than in Nyasaland, but they hated the way they were treated, and took that experience back to Nyasaland for the struggle for independence. One of those young leaders who came back from Tanzania was, Dunduza Chisiza. He was a remarkable farsighted young intellectual. In the midst of the independence euphoria in Africa, when everybody saw prosperity and shining freedom, he offered words at a big international symposium in Malawi, that turned out to be prophetic not only for Malawi: “Africa has groaned in the past, is wailing at present, and will probably yell in the future under the yoke of oppression and exploitation.” He was the first to confront Kamuzu Banda, the future dictator, on his style of leadership. A few weeks after that Du, which he was called, was dead. His car missed a bridge twenty-five kilometres from Zomba on the road from Blantyre one late evening in September 1962.
Dunduza Chizesa was one of a number of eloquent and brave young leaders. But when independence came, Kamuzu Banda was in power. The other young leaders were spread around the world, and silence ruled for 30 years.
Back to the economy. In the 1950s, the colonial government invested in a number of large capital-intensive projects, planning to use forests and agricultural land. However, most of them failed dismally. So, at independence, Malawi was by far the poorest of the three former British colonies in Central Africa. And in spite of the dictator Kamuzu Banda’s business friendly policies, Malawi was still one of the countries in the world with the weakest economy by the time democracy prevailed with the first multi-party elections in 1994. It is still there today, near the bottom. Although Malawi has, in fact, had an economic growth that is almost as high as the average in Africa the last decades.
The other long-term factor that hampers Malawi’s development is the density and growth of its population. 150 years ago, this part of Africa was in turmoil, as outside powers, Arab and Portuguese slave traders, and Zulu warriors terrified the area. When things calmed down, people seemed to pour into the water rich areas along Lake Malawi and the Shire River. The population density in Nyasaland was many times as high as in neighbouring Rhodesia and Tanganyika. A big population is not a disadvantage in itself, but its relative high growth has meant that there is not enough land for everybody. These two factors are the two long-term factors that to a large extent explains Malawi’s economic position, and why it never has managed to get out of the poverty trap.
Post-independence policies have, however, not helped much. Malawi never managed to make the leap we have seen among the neighbours in Tanzania, Zambia, and Mozambique. What we have had instead has been zigzaging economic policies, with the growth on track for a couple of years, only to get derailed again. Shifting governments that have been in power, from Dr Banda to the Mutharikas, should bear the responsibility, but they should share the blame with the main development partners (The World Bank, the IMF, the EU and the rest of us); for our unrealistic demands and expectations.
There is another story, however, another puzzle. With such a low per capita GNP, one would expect to find Malawi similarly placed on a number of other scores. But on many other indicators, particularly social indicators, you do not find it at all near the bottom of the list. Malawi was one of the very few African countries that managed to achieve a number of the development goals for 2015. Malawi scores better than average among African countries in child mortality, in youth literacy, and access to safe drinking water, although it is slightly below the average on child stunting, indicating high malnutrition. But not at all near the bottom. On poverty indexes, Malawi is near the middle among African countries.
After the fall of the dictatorship, development aid actually fell. But the more democratic society also opened up for redirection of government budgets and for a more development oriented dialogue with the development partners. More resources were now channelled into health, education, safe water and sanitation. At times, above 80 per cent of the expenses for health services in the country was funded by donors.
The question now is: How will it be possible for a small economy like Malawi’s to provide good health services and quality education for all of its citizens and children, as the people demand? The short answer is that it is not possible, not by the country on its own. The impressive achievements cannot be maintained and further improved, as the UN sustainable goals for 2030 require, without strong commitment not only from the country’s government, but equally from the world community.
The main problem for Malawi is the size of its economy. Malawi’s national budget is slightly more than one per cent of the national budget of Norway, for a population of 18 million or thereabout. The only good thing you can say about a small-sized economy is that it takes relatively little to increase it. Which should give some hopes with the right policies.
There are strong indications that the poverty situation has become worse recently, and that the economy is stagnating. That is, in any case, the view of the Malawians. In the latest poll of the Afrobarometer institute, which seeks people’s opinions on a wide range of issues in 34 African countries, 88 per cent of Malawians think that the country is moving in the wrong direction. 68 per cent expect the economy to get worse over the next years, only 13 per cent think it will improve. 56 per cent of the population say that they or their families have gone without food some times or many times over the last year. These are figures considerably higher than they used to be.
Malawians were also asked what the biggest problem facing Malawi is. Two issues dominated completely. 35 per cent said it was food shortage and famine, 23 per cent said it was the management of the economy. No other issue was listed as number one problem by more than 10 per cent.
There are other interesting findings. Hardly anyone mentioned ethnic tension, only two per cent pointed to the security and crime situation. Most Malawians feel safe. And they are generally tolerant people. 80-90 percent would happily have people with other religions as neighbours, they do not mind at all if the neighbour belongs to a different ethnic group or are foreigners. There is only one exception, gays. Up to ninety per cent would not like to have gay people as neighbours. It is a sad situation, I believe a reason is the strong position of the churches in the country, the churches that otherwise have played a key role in protecting the democracy in the country.
For Malawians believe in democracy. Two thirds of the people are in favour of a multi-party system and against a one party state. 87 per cent are against the military taking over power. This is in a country where the defence force is the most trusted of all government bodies. Maybe because the military leaders have always refused to be used politically.
People feel freer. 76 per cent say there is more freedom to join the political parties of their choice now compared to some years back, and more than half say there is more freedom for the media. But people do not trust politicians, they do not have a high regard for the president, for the parliament and local counsellors. The most trusted in addition to the military are the traditional leaders, the chiefs.
As in many countries, there is in Malawi a strong focus on personalities. Political parties without a strong man – or woman – are usually ridden by personal feuds and rivalry. Party decisions are strongly centralised, and for many years after 1994, party congresses or conferences did not take place often. However, they have become much more frequent and regular in later years.
The big-man syndrome was weakened after the fall of Banda. But it still permeates much of the political life. While the leaders are elevated and praised, the expectations of rewards from those who have supported them are equally high. Elected politicians are under strong pressure to pay back, to offer jobs and gifts. This syndrome is part of the realities that every politician has to live with. This reality coexists with the discussion and processes on thematically oriented policies linked to the various ministries and departments, the politics we as donors relate to.
The mechanisms above are reinforced by the one-person constituency elections. The winner takes it all. A lot is therefore at stake. When you stand for elections, you are likely to spend a lot of your own money. The consequences of losing and being excluded from political positions can be disastrous for you personally. And even if you are elected to parliament, you lose out if you are not in the party that wins the election. This situation creates fertile ground for political trading. (The strong involvement by politicians in business activities – since politicians are not allowed to have government jobs, they must find other means of income – adds to an environment that may easily become murky.) Alliances develop between politicians who are in and groupings in the private sector, so that business, personal and political interests are often entangled in a not very transparent way, to put it mildly. That is fertile ground for corruption, which undoubtedly has increased considerably over the last couple of decades.
It is important to emphasize these aspects of politics in order to better understand the situation politicians are in. There are outright crooks, of course, but many Malawian politicians I know, not least women, spend much of their time and own money on projects in their constituencies, schools, bridges, food relief, orphanages, not to speak about the many weddings and funerals they attend, where they have to contribute.
Gradually, more people in Africa are supporting democracy, which they did not experience during colonial time. But traditionally, the core values of democracy were not alien to many societies in Africa. There were certainly totalitarian dictatorships, says the British historian Richard Dowden, like the Zulu kingdom and the Buganda Empire in Uganda. But most kings and chiefs were subject to systems of control and balance of power, of committees of elders, even of spirits. Further, African societies often had the custom of sharing power and benefits. The emphasis was on consensus. Malawi has chosen to have a political system where either you win or you lose. In this way, a large portion of the population will at any time be side-lined and dissatisfied, because they have lost. This is certainly not in accordance with African traditions. In my view, proportional representation would better serve the whole population.
As most African countries, Malawi balances between the informal clientalism on one hand and stronger formal institutions on the other. But in my view the country has moved towards politics of voice, meaning that people have a say in where the country is going, and accountability, meaning that elected leaders have to account for their performance and decisions to their voters. It is a process that takes times, which have many ups and downs, and may even be derailed.
Are the politicians in government a hindrance for development, was one of the questions
I was asked to respond to. I would say yes, given the system, they are. The problem is that there are no clear indications that the others, those in opposition, would fare much better. But I believe in changing government, I believe in constantly strengthening the voices, and to hold the leaders to account. For each constitutional crisis Malawi has faced, the system has come out stronger. Slowly, over the “longue durée” things will change for the better.
In fact, what seems to have gone unnoticed in much of the world, is that Malawi slowly has developed into one of the most resilient democracies in Africa, particularly if you look at countries north of the Limpopo River. In spite of all malaise and bickering in politics, Malawi has clearly passed the test of democracy formulated by the guru of political science, the American S M Lipset, of providing constitutional opportunities for changing government. Attacks on the democratic constitution have been fought back, and the voters have been able to change the government. There is one professional group in Malawi that should be the first to take credit for this; the judges. The courts are ill-resourced and inefficient in many ways, but again and again have they shown their independence, and their decisions have been largely accepted.
But I would not dare to say that Malawi’s democracy has become resilient enough to be the ‘only game in town’ as another scientist put it. We do not know what may happen, and my calm before the elections next year is mixed with some nervousness.
Development Policy 