|
|
|
|
| Columns |
| Backbencher |
|
by
Anonymous, 22 October 2005
-
05:08:45
|
Take your case to people, Mr. President
Honourable Folks, it is absolutely unnecessary for government to use bureaucratic cobwebs as an excuse for President Bingu wa Mutharika’s failure to address Parliament. This could just be a golden opportunity for him to explain his case and put a stop to the unfortunate scenario where people hear about the performance of his administration from the perspective of his adversaries.
The President must realise that perhaps the only sector that may be well-informed about the performance of his government—its successes and failures and why—is the donor community. Malawians who depend on adequate, accurate and balanced information with which to make informed choices in their daily lives and with their votes when election time comes, are only fed with propaganda.
The President prefers to address the people, often in reaction to criticism from the opposition or civil society, through the so-called Presidential Diary programme on TVM or its radio equivalent. At times, journalists are invited to press conferences which often turn out to be more of DPP rallies than forums where journalists get worthwhile information from the Head of State for dissemination to a democratic nation where information is power.
The rains are almost here but who in Malawi knows if government has procured the subsidised fertiliser to which over K4 billion of taxpayer’s money was committed? Who knows exactly how government is tackling the current spate of hunger which threatens over 4 million lives?
People in government either give scanty information and often off the record or simply withhold information, classified or not classified (as if sections 35, 36 and 37 of the Constitution do not exist). Where reporters make an effort to dig deep and come up with something somebody wanted to hide, government simply looks in the statutes for a suitable draconian law and uses it to justify an arrest.
On arrival from one of the many foreign trips the President has made since assuming office, a reporter wanted to find out why Mutharika did not shake hands with his deputy, Cassim Chilumpha, on departure. The President got so angry that he spent quite some time giving the nosy reporter quite a good dressing down. He did not admit relations with the Vice President were not cordial, yet up to now everyone with eyes can see that the two do not see eye to eye.
This is exactly how Mutharika treated the media when he was in UDF. The tension that was there between him and his mentor-turned-nemesis Bakili Muluzi was vigorously denied in public and blamed on a sensational media, eager to do muck-racking in order to sell many newspaper copies. Yet that problem has today degenerated into threats of impeachment which have brought about tension (as manifested by demonstrations a couple of days ago for and against the impeachment).
Donors too have already indicated they might have to freeze the aid taps again at this time when our country is rocked by hunger, poor tobacco sales and huge domestic and foreign debts. Ask any economist and they will tell you that the mere talk about impeachment can scare away investors.
The case above shows why the Constitution made it the duty of the President to face the people through Parliament and answer difficult questions about how he is executing duties of the office the people of Malawi entrusted in him. Obviously, there are things his government is doing well and things his government is not doing well.
The people can only learn about them and make an opinion on whether or not we are indeed heading towards a time when we can kiss hunger goodbye, see industries mushrooming in rural areas to generate wealth and jobs for Malawians—promises Mutharika made in his inaugural speech—if he goes to Parliament to answer questions and if he becomes more accessible to the media.
Government only gives undeserved credit to its detractors by its failure to take its case to the people. Unfortunately, it does not have powers to stop the opposition from taking advantage of the situation to feed the information-hungry voters with negative news about government performance.
Probably, rather than wasting time worrying about poor information management by government, why don’t we just sit and watch as events unfold? I am sure someday, someone might use the current scenario to illustrate the folly of managing a democratic government by hiding vital information the dictatorial-style. ––Feedback: backbencher2005@yahoo.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
