|
|
|
|
| Columns |
| Backbencher |
|
by
Anonymous, 24 February 2007
-
09:05:41
|
History has lessons for Muluzi
Honourable Folks, Former South African President Nelson Mandela and former Mozambican President Joacchim Chissano both had one more constitutional term to serve when they decided to vacate the state house and go home to spend quality time with their families and friends.
Although the two great sons of Africa were still enjoying immense popularity and could easily win presidential elections in their respective countries, they handed over the mantle to fellow citizens, trusting that God also endowed others with wisdom to run a country. No person is indispensable.
Even the first Malawian head of state Kamuzu Banda was still life president for the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) when he decided to retire from active politics to pave way for what he described as “younger blood”.
I would like to believe that former Vice-President Justin Malewezi, in a small way, joins the ranks of these great statesmen by announcing to retire from active politics so he can devote his energies to the fight against HIV and Aids.
Isn’t it amazing then that, instead of learning from this recent history that has unfolded within our own southern African region, former President Bakili Muluzi keeps on haunting Malawians at every presidential election like a monster?
He was there among the contestants of the first multiparty presidential elections in 1994 and Malawians voted him into office. He contested again in 1999 and the people again gave him the vote.
He could not contest again because Section 83(3) of the Constitution only allows a president and vice-president to serve “in their respective capacities a maximum of two consecutive terms”. To beat the system, he first tried to use MPs to change the provision on the pretext that a popular president should be allowed to enjoy open terms as long as the people’s mandate is sought every five years. The plan flopped.
Muluzi then tried another trick, urging for constitutional changes to allow a president serve a third term so they can have ample time to finish their development projects. That, too, failed despite that a presidential order had been issued, requiring United Democratic Front (UDF) ministers to serve their so-called “political government” by going out to sell the third term idea to the people.
Muluzi then reluctantly let go of the presidency but not before imposing a hand-picked successor—the incumbent president—on Malawians. He probably thought Bingu wa Mutharika would show gratitude running the country from the armpits of UDF and its leadership.
In fact, the majority of the voters saw this imminent danger and denied Mutharika their votes. The President has first-past-the-post system and a divided opposition to thank for winning the polls with only 36 percent of the votes. Fortunately for Malawians, Mutharika ditched the UDF after being elected.
Now, the same Muluzi says it’s up to a UDF convention to choose the party’s candidate for the 2009 presidential elections. My foot, where was the convention in the run-up to the 2004 convention? Didn’t it simply rubber-stamp Muluzi’s own choice if the boasting that Mutharika is the tube he inflated and he can easily deflate it is anything to go by?
As a former head of state whose hefty retirement package is paid by the tax-payer, Muluzi’s come-back can’t just be a choice of the UDF as some party diehards have argued. Rather, the legitimate question is whether or not we, Malawians, are willing to recall Muluzi from retirement at BCA Hill to the State House?
I don’t know about you, but the thought of alleviating poverty by senseless splurges, runaway inflation and interest rates, high levels of corruption, a bigger-than-budget domestic debt, violence by Young Democrats and politics of patronage and victimisation makes me see the 10 years of Muluzi’s mediocre rule as a nightmare.
— Feedback: backbencher2005@yahoo.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
