A Commentary on Political Rhetoric (2)

Political Rhetoric and Citizen Dependency: The Case of  the "Freedom Fighter" Ideology

By the time I was born, in the mid 1980's (seems like a long time ago now especially when you meet people who were born in 1996), Malawi had already been independent as a sovereign nation since the 1960s, some 20 years before I happened. Nonetheless, it was not uncommon to hear people talk about the Malawi Congress Party (the then ruling party) in close conjunction with anti-colonial sentiment. President Hastings Banda, the then ruler of Malawi, was said to have single-handedly freed Malawi from Colonial rule (which is untrue because we do know of the role played by the National African Congress before Banda was called from Ghana to take up the role of Prime Minister). Essentially, we were all indebted to Banda, and he was therefore the legitimate leader of Malawi. He had earned it. Seems like a far-fetched idea now.

In South Africa, a second and arguably more meaningful independence was finalized in 1994 when the new and progressive Constitution was ratified. The new document stipulated the end of all forms of segregation starting from race, to ethnicity, to gender and to politics. The promise of a new South Africa was particularly embodied by the iconic, larger than life moral figure of Nelson Mandela who became the first Black President of democratic South Africa. Everything seemed right for true transformation.

18 years later, notable progress has been achieved on several frontiers. The State has undertaken to roll back the massive disparities in social amenities, achieving giant strides in electrification projects, transportation infrastructure programmes, sanitation and potable water projects, the normalization and regularization of health and education disparities, housing expansion, and so on. However, the message embedded in the freedom struggle remains strong. That message is extremely rich in the history of South Africa as it brings back the memories of all that was incurred in order to bring about the free nation that South Africa is today. Furthermore, it is extremely useful for reconciling the numerous social groups back to each other as it preaches messages of togetherness and oneness - helping identify with one another on the basis of a common painful history. It is a vital tool for unity. However, politics is a game of gaining mileage over competitors, and what promises to resonate powerfully with the people will be pushed, sometimes, to the extreme in order to maintain or escalate a percieved political advantage.

The institutional order of the South African State resembles a Federation. There is a national government which seats in Pretoria and is responsible for bringing legislation through the National Parliament, developing broad national policies, and intervening in inter-provincial matters. Then there are nine provincial governments with premiers. They look into developing provincial policies especially aligned to meet provincial needs, pass provincial legislation through provincial parliaments, and oversee service delivery within provinces. They are, however, subject to laws passed at the national assembly level and bound by the Republic's Constitution. Beneath them are local governments which consist of municipalities whose objectives are, amongst other things, to provide democratic and accountable government for local communities, to ensure the provision of services to communities and to promote social and economic development. The government of South Africa is therefore reasonably decentralized, and on paper, it should be relatively straightforward in so far as figuring out how and where things are going array when they do go array. This is, however, rarely the case.

In returning to the issue under discussion, political rhetoric becomes a very powerful tool, in my opinion, for turning public attention from issues that should be looked into towards, on occasion, a seemingly  abstract enemy. It is crucial to point out that government systems and their consequences do not disappear immediately after a change in political power. Especially when you are looking at around a half a century (1948 - 1994) of oppressionist rule preceeded by close to three centuries of colonial rule, as is the case with South Africa. However, even when "backwardness" or a lack of progress is to be accounted for by a presently serving political regime, political rhetoric embedded in a deeply sensitive and sentimental subject as Apartheid and to a lesser extent colonialism can conceal the present regimes own shortfalls and defer the blame onto an enemy who is at that time not physically tangible but, call it, metaphysically vivid. However, as a consequence, there is a dampening of the individual's and community's ability to confront challenges in a progressive and creative manner thereby creating an attitude that is in stark contrast to the attitude that was prevalent and synonymous with South African citizens prior and leading up to the overthrow of Apartheid. Political rhetoric becomes a tool of creating a dependency even though the intended result might be to innocently gain political mileage, however way you may attempt to extricate those two conditions from each other.

In Malawi, similar rhetoric exists. For instance, the donor-dependency rhetoric. The subsidy rhetoric. The political sabotage rhetoric and so on. At the end of the day, a rhetorical sentiment generated by a dominant political party or outfit achieves its end in developing a dependency between those it wishes to cajole and itself. And this in spite of a clearly laid out structure of government that permits citizens to track and bring to account most malpractises in various offices. It is important to note also that these problems become more compounded when they are considered within a party government structure. That is, a system of government in which people vote for a party. After electoral success, the party then decides who fills what capacities in the various organs of State including the National and Provincial Assemblies. In the end, nonetheless, our gratitude is to the freedom fighter now serving within that party who will continue to preach the message of his or her victories in our past at the expense of his or her own accountability in our present, at the cost of a better society in our future. And we, the citizenry find ourselves developing a dependency, shedding our own will to develop and demand accountability, and looking up towards him or her who now serves beyond our reproach for our salvation.

Just a comment.