Malawi's Extraordinary Ambivalence

Perhaps the most refreshing thing about this year is that it is not business as usual in Malawi anymore. In previous blogs I have argued, with some difficulty, about social currents or transcripts, about the unwritten text that configures social currents albeit sometimes just beneath the level of our consciousness, and especially the enormous dilemmas of not necessarily extracting ourselves from our problems but rather causing them to churn in the direction of progress. Progress itself, I also argued, was to be defined in the strict terms of pragmatism in which all objects of our heavily proliferated and transcendent culture become relativized to the point where they become nothing more than tools to an end.

Now in 2013, it appears that the transcripts that underlie social interactions in Malawi have somewhat began to broaden beyond their initial parameters. The official performances of what characterize daily politics in Malawi have become old and tired. The Government of Malawi has maintained its grip on development via its heavily centralized organization. As a consequence, the public has started to demand that development directly from the centralized government, and as speculated in recent posts, while the government has suddenly though predictably found itself unable to meet out all the demands emanating from everywhere amongst the Malawian public. This is fracture number one - where the old politics of patrimonialism have folded upon themselves due to the declining space between central governments and district publics, to call them that. This shrinkage, much like globalization, has been necessitated by the availability of information technologies that are allowing people to keep abreast with the functionings of their government. Yes some of these technologies are as old as the radio itself. This modern effect was grossly underestimated by Bingu who was aware of it, and I know this, because he frequently used the public broadcaster to spread his propaganda so as to shape public opinion (not the newest trick in the book, perhaps even the oldest and most tired). But Joyce Banda has simply, as far as her behavior entails, either not considered it, or has supposed that it would work in her favor (as evidenced by her willingness to issue out more broadcasting licences to new media houses). In a nutshell, a government that seeks to be praised for everything good within its borders inadvertently invites criticism for everything bad as well. This is why a de-centralization of power is more politically prudent even for the most power hungry politicians in the World. Unless of course you are not Malawi, and you have a large and devoted enough military following to suppress any dissent associated with everything bad.

The nature of Malawi's ambivalence is extraordinary indeed (pardon my rather long introduction). The excessive centralization of power has had the following effect, amongst many, in the way citizens and central government interact. In the first place, all good things (metaphorically speaking) come from the president, the parent of the nation, who is wisest and most powerful. Secondly, in spite of all that power and wisdom, not everyone receives good things from the president except those who are close to him or her (because the president will reward his or her children depending on the value of their work that is culturally, while perhaps the real reason for this is that the president simply does not have enough resources at the disposal of his or her government to meet everyone’s need). And lastly, there are so many of us who have seen all four presidents of Malawi - three of them already having come and gone – and have not yet received any favors. Furthermore, the limited resources of the Malawi government have become all the more apparent now than ever before because firstly, the dramatic expulsion of the British envoy has firmly, maybe unfairly, been imprinted on everybody as the root cause of the current economic woes, and secondly, the more recent campaign efforts of Joyce Banda who goes around telling people that Malawi needs the assistance of British government, the World Bank and the IMF even citing them as the authority upon which she is assured that her reforms will work, further diminishes the power of her own government. Here, we can already see an impractical and self-conflicting discourse - it says I am the President your God in the same breath as it says I am not all powerful and all capable. Perhaps the globetrotting seeks to push a somewhat different message that says, “I am your President, the special one, who is able to convince the sophisticated west into assisting our country... and therefore I am something beyond the ordinary.”

Now, in examining the public sphere or space, you also begin to see this same impractical and self-invalidating principle. The performances of power such as motorcades, military escorts, red carpets, external visits, massive entourages and the works all serve to cause faith in the Presidents abilities to meet needs. These are indeed expected by many people who go to see the President. They expect this portrayal of power and general extravagance. And yet, because this power has remained more or less accessible to the few, amidst the growing knowledge that it is all in fact a hoax and that the president's government doesn’t even have funds to keep itself running, causes a despair and yearning for something different, something more. However, beyond the confines of the pre-texting transcript of social and political life, that something more remains at most only vaguely defined, and at worst, only seen as an idea or concept of a better life. Its like a need felt by the citizen to somehow move beyond this crippling state of affairs. It would not, in my opinion, be wrong to presuppose this because where a state is heavily corrupt and therefore arbitrary in its allocation of "benefits", a great deal of suspicion ensues and not just suspicion towards the State, but to the Malawian public generally. It is not uncommon to find Malawians complain about corruption in public, but during those encounters, those involved in the dialogue are without corruption while everybody else who constitutes the generalized public is deemed corrupt. To put it comically, there might have been an instance in which every adult Malawian in Malawi could have been complaining to another adult about corruption with this generalized picture of the otherness of corruption within the broader society. In which case, everyone was at that moment un-corrupt while everyone else was corrupt (see what I mean?)  This is a case of at least three impractical and self-conflicting logics (the Presidential one, the public-government one, and lastly, the individual-public one). The social transcript as it is is not able to fully encompass this, call it, problem. It seems the public space is fresh for newer and more relevant discourse.

The intricate and meta-theoretic details of this strange position can be seen within the writings of Cultural Sociologists. I for one do not fully espouse their positions but I feel that this filter called culture produces the sorts of subjectivities that could explain a lot of some of the more self-conflicting happenings in Malawi even though the exact motivating causes of such might in fact emanate from the felt living conditions of that country's people. In a nutshell, this extraordinary ambivalence is a good thing for this reason; the political stage and its associated performances will have to be changed. And since we are in a crisis state of economy, it is unlikely that any larger than life projections of the presidency or of upper government generally will fly with the people. That line of performance no longer sits well because we are now all too aware of our government’s limitations. The presidency has only the option of diminishing and presenting an image that is more in tandem with the conditions of the people. As a consequence, institutions will be strengthened because larger than life figures of personalities will not be tolerated by the public. The arrested or limited transcript of the social as it now stands means the debate or the opinions in the public stage might be minimal, but the resistance will be strong. These last sentences I made are highly optimistic and need to be further fortified with some more rigorous examination. That should lead me to my next blog post in the next several days.

Let’s see how this all pans out in 2013.

Currencies of our Society: My Personal Crisis

I recall one morning, speaking to my Social Theory lecturer, Prof Burton, commenting on Postmodernism, telling him that the central problem I had with "thinking in a postmodern way was that their were no handles, and the arguments or sketches provided by postmodernist thinkers just never seemed to land... they remained afloat in the air of academic jargon, so to speak". My professor, without even thinking too deeply about what I had raised, within a split second said to me, "perhaps your inability to think in a postmodernist way is proof of how deeply oppressed your mind has become amidst the prevalent systems of analysis..." and that was it. Lol. I truly enjoy our intellectual encounters.

 

This particular encounter happened some 7 months ago, but it left we extremely uneasy. I am particularly petty in the sense that my mind tends to become easily obsessed with every small claim I encounter on the daily basis. The possibility that perhaps all I knew and understood was merely a prescribed system of order to provide a basis for imbuing familiarity upon social life was too much for me to dismiss. And I subsequently pondered considerably around this claim's possibility.

 

Perhaps nowhere else does one find a similar unrest, and upheaval, to distill reality than within the realm of feminist thinking. Naively, in the past, I dismissed faminism as merely a political activity aimed at engendering a fairness between the sexes. However, further reading into feminism has awakened me to the possibility that perhaps the oppression of women points towards a different sort of oppression that is incurred by both men and women together. In simple terms, "he who enslaves another must commit a large amount of resources and will to ensure that the oppressed party remains a slave." Below, I will attempt to put these seemingly isolated paragraphs into something coherent, using my personal crisis as an illustration.

 

Feminist thinkers, especially those who theorize about the formulation of identity at the infancy stage, essentially argue that the human being, is born with an amorpheous slate of mind. As the child experiences the world, be it through engagements with the family and other people generally, they begin to acquire a sense of self that is distinct and separate from the objects, inclusive of people, that constitute social reality. With this development of self, comes the stratification of the mind, the psyche, that imprints upon the very soul of the person a sort of blueprint for all manner of social transactions. The individual is coded with a lingu franca so to speak, that is essentially the very, albeit intangible, material that composes and orders the social world as it operates. This means therefore that the individual becomes instrumentalized to think and know in a manner that is ingredient for the continuity of the social machinary. By the time the individual comes to see themselves as female or male, they are not only seeing this difference of sex as a matter of mere nomenclature, but rather, this view of self is in fact the self itself, along with all the blueprinting that permits any kind of functioning within the social setup. Essentially, for feminists, this is how patriarchy continues to be self recreating. It activates itself continuously via the creation of new "humans". Anything outside that strict definition of human is insane or not human, just as Foucault argued in his The Order of Things.

 

Personnally, and in deeply reflecting upon my own life, I find that I agree with the transactory aspects of these postulations. Social transactions, here standing for all manner of intra- and inter-human engagement, are not at all natural. They are in fact, despite being realities in themselves, actual manifestations of people's individual blueprints. We hear not merely because there is the propagation of sound through the air, but also because what is spoken co-relates with what we have already been inscribed with as persons within our stratified minds. Take for instance, language. We understand a language because we already know that language. The resultant harmony and coordinated essences of social life vis-a-vis could therefore be seen as, to put it mildly, the familiarities seen in what is completely unfamiliar by human conduits, who relate with each other based on the interplay between internal databases and external things. This position is similiar to what Sassaure and subsequent others argued about signs (signiers and signieds, and even Derrida's critique of the text).

 

Because I lost my mother when I was 12, and then my father when I was 20, I had to, from that age of 12, adopt a view of life that instrumentalized all material and immaterial resources for my own survival and betterment. This attitude forced me to see my environment, both inside and outside myself, as a vast array of affordances or a storehouse of equipment. My duty was to reach into that environment and attempt to form any number of tools that would help improve my position in terms of survival. As a result, even culture seized to overcast me, rather, I reduced it to a mere toolbox for solutions. If certain aspects of that culture proved irrelevant to my survival, I discarded them. If they proved useful, I kept them. Culture became merely a tool for me, as did all other things in the social environment. The one thing I did not anticipate though was that once I had turned my social reality into nothing more than a catalogue of affordances, the very essences and blueprints that I had been imbued within me as a child would also change both in terms of what I meant when I wished to extend meaning, as well as what I heard when others, external to me, attempted to transact meaning. In short, I had began to fracture my blueprint to violate what constituted a normal social transaction. The result, as years when on, in my early twenties, I began to experience a significant crisis of identity. I simply could not relate to much of what was going on in society - that is, much of everything had lost all meaning to me. Furthermore, I felt as though everytime I attempted to render a meaning towards the social, that meaning was often not understood. The only thing I new for a fact was my deep love for my sister. That was never in any state of doubt.

 

To translate all this abstraction into something tangible, and in returning back to my earlier take on feminism, even my relations with members of the opposite sex seemed off. My approach to any kind of relationship is that everything around us and within us was ultimately at our disposal to use for the betterment of ourselves and our relationship in the long run. I would often hear, amongst the more self-aware and outspoken female counterparts, powerful arguments for equality and their aspirations to see a different organization of the social in which men and women had the same status. I must admit that I had never thought about gender issues much except that I simply did not see why men were valued more in society than women simply because it just didnt seat well with any kind of value-free logic, and secondly because amidst the rampant poverty in Malawi, I did not see why I would want to oppress my wife if her success in her profession gave us a better chance to survive and live under more favorable conditions. Again, for me, life is all about affordances and culture is nothing more than a tool that I can be discarded or enforced on the strict basis of relevance.

 

But when I would then get closer to these powerful advocates of equality, I often found that their blueprint for functioning socially was still very much hardwired towards maintaining the prevalent social contract that informed social transactions. To cut a long story short, a man who keeps coming back to the women he is dating or to whom he is married to confer with her over every matter under the sun is simply viewed as a weak man in my society, and such relationships are often doomed to failured. Its almost like, right in our souls, we are only able to relate with one another on the basis of domination and oppression. The prison of patriachy that the activist so powerfully criticizes is also the basis for that activists' own security. The severing of the social order that prescribed meaning and purpose to the entire array of social objects and things we encounter daily for a newer one is too unsettling. Furthermore, in much the same way as I felt when I told my professor that I could not think in a postmodern way, we, both men and women, are simply so deeply "oppressed" by our current arrangements that we simply would not have a language that would permit us to familiarize ourselves with a blank, value-free reality absent of the ordering forces of culture, of "present society", of patriarchy. So the man must continue to man the cage, and the women must continue to woman the space within that cage, and humanity must continue to organize itself around the very limited experience of guards and prisoners that makes up society as we know it.

 

In conclusion.... well, there is no conclusion, except that it is entirely possible to feel completely alien to ones own social environment despite having been produced by and grown up in it. Secondly, a huge amount of helplessness can characterize a life in which one observes the actions of some many others and wonders why those actions are given such transcendental meaning. Why women in Zambia must see themselves as the sole liabilities for failures in their marriages, singing songs such as "I was nothing but today my vagina has set me free" at their weddings. Why women in Zimbabwe must go to great lengths to practice and become experts of the bedroom, going so far as to even make sure that their husbands pleasantries are kept nicely clean and tidy with an assortment of bedside hand towels and scented soaps (as if the man was not able to clean his own body). Why women in Malawi testify proudly about what is clearly oppressive and unfair treatment when men sleep outside the home, blaming their own inability to tame their own loins on one or another inadequacy of the wife.

 

These are simply observations and criticisms I am making about instances of already set up "patriarchical" institutions. A feminist would perhaps argue that all such institutions ought to be abolished in the first place before true transformation can occur. That is, to deliberately castrate the institutional aspects of the social system so as to limit its damning instrumentalization of people. Because in simple terms, oppression and generally "order" is just the language we speak. As Derrida so prolifically summed it all up, albeit in a somewhat different analysis, "there is nothing outside the text". Surely, as a young man who has sought to critique his own culture, there truly is a crisis of identity beyond the cultural transcript of society. However, we must be willing to develop a new system of transactions that would permit us to arrive at a more just and fair society. That transcript could in fact be the genesis of a new modernity, in which social currencies carry within them inherent essences of equality as well as an internal call for expansion and freedom. A society whose anchoring locality, which is presently a system of guards and prisoners, is delocalized into a different system even though I am not able to name it or describe it, so to speak. Recall, there is nothing beyond the text - or to put it sternly, what is not within the realm of transactory currencies, including language, simply does not exist. Fatalistic, huh?

 

I know, there are numerous detours in the course of this writing. But I hope the gist has been transmitted accordingly. Thanks for reading.

 

Cheers!

Intentional Reflexivity: A note on Malawi's Culture within the Discourses of Modernism

Recently, the Justice Minister of Malawi announced the suspension of anti-gay legislation pending further deliberations on the same in Malawi's Parliament. Well, several human rights organizations including, most notably, Amnesty International applauded the move as an unprecedented step forward in the history of this matter in Malawi particularly, and  perhaps even in Africa generally. While it is not the concern of this article to talk directly about this particular case, I would like to point it out that it is unconstitutional for any member of the executive to suspend or shelve any law in Malawi. Those functions are strictly reserved for the Judiciary and the Parliament ONLY. It was surprising that our good old Western Government buddies who are so quick to point out our failures in governance have not yet raised concerns, as they usually do concerning every small thing in Malawi, about this gross violation of the principle of separation of powers. Furthermore, in terms of the social psyche of our country, it proves my earlier arguments in this blog in which I have stated that in Malawi, activism and political participation is not necessarily about Constitutionalism, rather, it is about livelihoods. As long as livelihoods are not threatened by Executive decisions, then nobody cares about what the executive does. Any upheavals resulting from such executive actions are primarily informed by culture as a standard for practises in a democracy as opposed to a reflection of what constitutes democratic practise within the ambids of the Republic's Constitution. As such, activism seldom about the principles of constitutionalism; it’s about the pocket and the stomach. But let’s move right along...

When the Europeans first arrived on the shores of the African continent, they did not find paradise. They found societies. Societies with positives as well as negatives, just like all other societies of the world. Over the next several decades and centuries, they embarked on various projects driven by whatever political and economic pursuits they wanted to realize. Some of the more notable ones were slave-trade and colonialism which impacted on the African continent in a myriad of ways. In fact, such were their pursuits that even some economic-historian scholars have argued that the World Wars of 1914 and 1940 were really wars over African colonies. Their arguments are compelling even though we can’t side-step great atrocious evils suffered by some races simply because other races foolishly thought they were superior. Perhaps it would be better to presume that those wars were the articulation of the various interests of different powerful actors of that period. *I only comment on the war here to skip to the next section of my discussion which is the independence phase of African states.

However, the next couple of decades following the Second World War period saw several African countries attain independence, including Malawi in the 1960s. The following years after independence, African States sought legitimation by projecting government as the solution to the huge number of socio-economic problems that beset African countries. Discourses were marred within the contradictions of efforts to reclaim an African identity, which was supposedly lost due to colonialism and Western activists on the African continent, and the need to modernize and attain to the very same standards of life in Western societies albeit mostly seen via the very same vehicle of colonization.

Overtime, a rapture occurred as the liberationists (the African movements that rose to power after gaining independence) begun to use the material as well as immaterial essences of modernization to portray power and prestige on the one hand, while preaching a message of Africanization on the other to pacify the people into an acceptance of their deplorable conditions. The matter of the African identity became conflated with African culture, and African culture became anything that legitimized the ailing state of leadership on the continent. For example, it was African culture for the President to be seen as the father of the nation and therefore he was infallable and beyond reproach. Meanwhile, the father figure enriched himself and his cronies using that same culture as a means of legimitzing his poor style of governance. Its my opinion that culture, however it was defined, became instrumentalized for oppression.

Furthermore, these were, in a Sociological view, the early indications of the failure of the Africanization project promised at independence. Subsequent occurrences such as the commodity price shock that many attribute to the present heavy indebtedness of African countries found fertile ground for its occurrence at time when the State was living beyond its means, and white elephant projects had to be endeavoured in order to portray some kind of socio-economic progress some 30 years after independence. Meanwhile, the liberationists were gaining great wealth from their control of the State and its resources. And the order of business on the continent, which was stricken by great poverty, became about livelihoods. Politics of the belly were beginning to set in. I wish to not articulate this condition further.

Presently, and specifically in Malawi, this contradiction continues to ensue. Case in point, gay rights. The arguments that abound within the social sphere are that gay and lesbian activities are un-African (that is, they are not of African culture). The concept of what is African itself remains more or less as ambiguous as it was in 1960 when the Malawi got its political, and not necessarily economic, independence of the Britain. Meanwhile, large motorcades that escort the presidency are seen as African; State residences all over the country are seen as African; Condom use for sexual relations with multiple partners are seen as African; and so on, and yet the right for two consenting adults to engage in same sex relations are seen as un-African. Bear in mind also that these laws were not introduced by African leaders but rather by colonial masters prior to independence. I only articulate this argument in order to illustrate a point further down, and not to get into the technicalities of what is right or wrong within the Malawian context. By and large, I think our problems aren’t about wrong or right, but rather what is practical and impractical for moving forward in a project of all-inclusive development.

The point I seek to make is thus as follows. A practical way of going about a relevant African renaissance at this point in our history is to come to the acceptance that we need to begin to relate and compare so many things we have held as static with those goals we seek to achieve. This means that we need take stock of our culture, our ways of life, our beliefs, our customs and other social things, and to match them against our goals, our aspirations, our visions. Then we need to realistically reflect on what it is we can hold on it as assets for moving forward and what we need to drop as liabilities. We must reflect upon our own culture and stop seeing it as something that was ordained by God or some sovereign "other" entity. Culture is merely a tool that permits us to see order in our World in an apolitical sense. In a political sense, culture can be and has been instrumentalized on this continent for illegitimate forms of rule and pacification for deplorable living conditions. For me, the question is no longer about what is modern versus what is traditional. It’s more a matter of what works and what doesn’t.

Modernism then becomes a project of cultural reflexivity and not necessarily a project of attempting to be like Britain or America or Japan. It is simply the task of equipping ourselves towards the betterment of ourselves within the prevalent condition of our times. In this sense, all things become African if they are used to our betterment and progress. And all things become un-African if they hamper that progress. If wearing miniskirts assists our efforts to empower, to put it in an African manner, our beloved sisters, then so be it (*satirically speaking). However and fortunately, the nature of our problems are characterized by evident conditions. People have poor or no housing, have no clean water, have little access to what is poor education, have poor access to what is low quality healthcare, have few opportunities to develop themselves economically and socially, have little influence over the course of their governments because of poor governance institutions and systems, and so on. I say all these things are un-African because they hold us back from a better life, and not because they are the features that have been largely been dealt away with by more developed countries like Japan for instance.

This argument is a mere sketch of many potentially controversial and intricate debates pertaining to numerous forms of life within the Malawian and African context, but the key is to venture into thinking about them as opposed to keeping to this fixed-static state of culture approach we have seen for way too long now. Like I said before, before Europeans came to this continent, we were not a paradise or an Eden, we were a continent full of societies that had negatives and positives. And as such, an African model for development cannot hold culture as a central incontestable and infallible feature of the African society when that culture, even in its pure pre-Europeanized form was imperfect. Again, we need to deliberately and intensively critique our cultures in order to make them more compatible for and with our efforts to develop. That, in my opinion, would constitute a more progressive African Modernization project than the antagonisms we have seen between what is Western and what is African. All things are African provided they become tools for progress, including this Windows HP computer that I so frequently use to upload updates to my little humble blog.

Cheers

Adam Smith's Invisible Hand: Lessons for Governance

Adam Smith (1723 – 1790) was a social philosopher whose ideas significantly informed the discipline of Economics at least up until the late 1940's (the post war period) even though significant opposition had started to emerge decades before that time. The way in which economics theory, particularly the classical and neo-classical schools, adopted and applied his thinking to their theorization served to further remove him from being understood as the philosopher that he was, to being seen an one of the first generals of the field of economics. However, the writings of Adam Smith, as I have come to understand them are potent with implications that point toward the broader operations of a society. And it is for that reason that I have taken to write this article on this blog.

The invisible hand, as proposed by Adam Smith, illustrates the self-regulatory operation of markets as social agents go about selling and buying to maximize profits and utilities, respectively. Furthermore, with the onset of the industrial and scientific revolutions, the production functions of firms or call them, producing entities, has radically been reorganized. The market encompassed not only the theatre of buying and selling of consumables necessarily but also the buying and selling of labor for production and wages also. All this occurred within a context of secularization, that is, the debasing of traditional and metaphysical foundations for power and social organizations towards a scientific base for morality and authority. Science was seen as representing humanities ability to continuously conquer nature by demystifying it, and then going on to use those scientific discoveries for uniform, un-fragmented reason which would form the basis for social bonds and social organization, and production of course.
 

The power of such a background of secularization, and the belief in science as a vehicle for a more uniform, reason-embedded basis for social life, is further advanced by Adam Smith's invisible hand theory. If indeed, social or economic agents were operating within a market for profit and utility maximization informed by a morality and mode of activity anchored in science, then automatically the market's logic of self-regulation was ultimately the expression of the micro-activities of scientific logic. It is therefore not strange that the invisible hand was seen as inherently advancing the interests of humanity. The logic of the invisible hand was as an articulation of the logics of individual actors at their specific markets.

However, the resource allocation power of the market, as an entity in itself was left in flux. As industrialization took deeper roots in the operations of the social, the invisible hand or the market seemed to acquire an existential quality of itself independent of the actual actions of the individual market participants. The price mechanism determined demand and supply. The price mechanism also determined where that supply would be "supplied". And weak demand excluded itself automatically from supply. The repercussions spun without society, and lead to the eventual formulations of theories such as those of the Keynesian School. The debate about this dualism between the market, as an entity in itself, and the actors, as social agents, is nowhere more heavily contested than in the realm of contemporary social theory. Here, it is articulated as a dualism or duality, depending on who is arguing, between social realities (structures) and social actors (human beings), and whether indeed humanity is in charge of their own history, as the enlightenment presupposed, or if in fact the structures (for instance, the market), are imposing on humanity a pre-determined, so to speak, course of history.

Adam Smith's invisible hand points to a more general problem about the actions of people as thinking and conscious agents within social systems that seem to have an inherent ability to impose on the person or people what needs to happen at any particular time in history. Many feel extremely disempowered by such a condition, and reject it as an argument of fatalism. I, however, see it as an opportunity for collective action towards a goal alongside a built-in mechanism that locks activity within certain parameters in keeping with whatever ideals a given people chose to celebrate. This is immediately problematic for some social thinkers because the uniformity as envisaged by the enlightenment period, also presented the human actor as a rational, science informed entity. Post-Structuralists such as Foucault, devoted a lot of time in arguing that people's psyches are not uniform and are not strictly adherent to scientific logic, rather people essentially struggled between pleasure and reason within a world in which the standards for behavior had been steadily corroded by science itself. A good example is medicine, which is a hard science, and yet more and more, it’s become fractured in terms of professional opinions about ailments. It has also become more personalized, meaning that, people are able to access different sources of medicine and apply it to themselves all in the name of Science. Science itself seems to have been taken up by the "market" (here used as a metaphor) and its standardizations have become extremely fractured. There is therefore no single basis for morality or behaving generally (and this is pre-emptive of postmodern thinking).

However, the basis for argumentation or debate within society has not been established in a country like Malawi. The problems that characterize the fragmented state of society in post-industrial countries such as those of Europe can, in my humble opinion, be traced back to a science led expansion logic, especially in Europe following their political revolutions (such as the French Revolution). Late-comers such as Japan, China, Brazil, India, and even the USA amongst others, demonstrate a more "spirit" led expansion logic. Spirit in the sense that certain positions regarding what development and governance entails were only arbitrarily taken. Arbitrary in the sense that science did not inform such positions, but rather, it was instrumentalized in bringing them to pass. I think the Scandinavia is also a good example of such "spirit" led expansion. Reason only served to lead the realization of those positions overtime.

Malawi has that to its advantage. We can either allow a self-manifesting otherness to impose on the general course of our development in the Adam Smith fashion, or we can attempt to galvanize ourselves around a central general idea. Such ideas could be formulated out of a simple effort in which we take stock of our own human suffering and then deciding that we will no longer tolerate it. We could then endeavor to empower our economy and our governance institutions in serving those priority areas while deliberately neglecting others. We can choose to deliberately frustrate the market in accordance with those ideas. This is in keeping with the argument that we can induce a desired course of history albeit at the expense of other courses. But at least then, people can debate about rights or whatever else concerns them on a full belly, under good shelter, under response and efficient government, and a society that generally works. By the way, there is nothing scientific about the American dream or indeed how they call themselves the greatest nation in the world. But these "propagandas" serve to galvanize activity, and to have a more "spirit" led development project than one that is determined by the otherness of automated structures. Such a dry and spiritless liberalism will only culminate in prolonged stagnation for Malawi, or at best, a type of development that seems alien to her people.

I have been reading extensively the literature around the politics of international economics. It is clear from the arguments that pure economics will not sustain a development effort. The visible hand of the State and civil society must intervene even within the contentions of rent seeking behavior, externalities, and other market distortions. The key is not to keep the market efficient, but rather to keep the hopes of people central to the efforts of developing at reasonable efficiency opportunity costs incurred within the market. And herein do we find the central role of governance. It must facilitate the entrenchment of a Malawian idea of progress, and be part of the economic development that must bring about that change we would like to see. This does not necessarily require a big and authoritarian government. It only requires an efficient and responsive one. And of course, one that has decided to grow past the infancy state of its backward politics. Adam Smith, inadvertently, teaches us that through his classic invisible hand theory. And the State led development projects of the Asian Tigers as well as the Latin American Giants further cements my assertions. To end it, albeit poetically, "the market must work for us ~ we must not work for the market."

 

Governance and Aid in Malawi: A Minor Comment

So, Madam Joyce Banda inherits a government on the brink of financial ruin, and a nation equally burdened by regressive politics and economics. Donor confidence is virtually non-existent, and in short, the Malawi economy is bone-dry given that government spending as a driver of growth stalls, while heavy taxes on businesses and consumers alike further hamper investment and consumption spending, respectively. Politics has by this time inflitrated into virtually all spending outlets of the government from the ministries to parastals, all the way down to districts. Tenders are awarded based on political alignments, and yet, even within that premitive model of politics, there is simply not enough juice to cater for all party functionaries. The society becomes fragmented and polarized. Political rhetoric from the then ruling party employs messages loaded with threatening language to deter opponents, and in some instances, the state security forces "act-out" the content of those messages. However, violence is not a private good, but a public one - no one has monopoly over the use of violence. Society follows suite as the resolution of desputes is decided on the streets. In my view, all the crises carrying on in the country are really the result of "bad" governance that had especially managed to choke at the livelihood of Malawi's people. As I have argued before, the Malawian public does not necessarily oppose unconstitutional governance. It really opposes, on the one hand, good governance that negatively affects livelihoods, and on the other, bad governance that also affects negatively livelihoods, even though the potential for political action is skewed towards urban citizens. A case in point is Bingu wa Mutharika's first term. It was not necessarily one that adhered to the precepts of democracy as enshrined in our Constitution. Rather, it was a term in which the ends justified the means. As long as the politics didnt tamper with livelihoods, the unconstitutional governance was "fine".

 

Enters Madam Joyce at a time when it was clear that Malawi was paying for the sin of deporting the Ambassador to Malawi from the United Kingdom. The suffering emanated from an acute shortage of foreign exchange which rendered the country unable to purchase production inputs, petroleum products, drugs, and other necessities. The shortage of forex itself emanated from the freezing of UK aid by the British government, and the subsequent aid freeze from other bilateral partners such as Germany and the United States. And aid freeze itself emanated from "bad" governance. That was the argument. Bad governance had put Malawi into this position. But this was only for arguments sake, because recall, bad governance is only that kind of governance that threatens the livelihood of Malawi's people, and not necessarily that governance that violated Constitutional order. But hey, the Civil Society and the Opposition had to work with something. The bad governance argument perfectly linked donor aid freeze to Malawi's crisis as a result of the prevailing mode of governance. Well and good. Joyce Banda comes in, quickly undoes the various policy positions that indicated bad governance. She reversed certain laws, indicated her intentions to reverse yet other more controversial ones, opened up space on the public broadcaster to opponents, opened up the airwaves to more radio and television stations, and frequently engaged with the media and civil society. The aid taps - due to her magic wand politics - burst open, and Malawi's liquidity crunch begins to ease. Despite the immediate pains of some of her "reforms", citizens still patiently rally behind her, fingers crossed, banking on the flowing liquidity. Hope is percieved in the future, and she instantly obtains the mantle of a good and prudent "governor" all under one hundred days.

 

Now enters a "new" kind of problem. "New" because Bingu, her predecessor, was so beguiled and embroiled by it, that when he (and I give him the benefit of the doubt when I say this) finally saw it for what it was. He tried to step back and re-assert himself as the president of Malawi, and not the president to Malawi commissioned by the donating world. What do I mean? During his first term, and the first ten months of his second term, Bingu was the world's darling. He flew everywhere collecting awards and accolades for wearing the best gentleman's shoes (*sarcasm) to being a champion for Africa's food security. Meanwhile, amidst all his efforts, he was focusing on the wrong audience. He mistakenly assumed that our aid masters (donors) and his actual masters (Malawians) could be seated in front of the same stage, and made to enjoy his same performance. He forgot a defining distinction between the two and that was, donors were not the recipients of his estranged policies. Malawians were. Put simply (*yeah I keep saying that...lol) governance and aid are not the same thing despite the ways in which their respective discourses are inextricably intertwined with and within each other. And now slowly, I see Madam Joyce slipping into the same old "new" problem. She assumes that donor confidence and support is indicative of Malawian confidence and support even though those donors sit in London, Berlin and New York while most Malawians languish under the bare sky, night and day, in poor shelter, going to poor schools and hospitals, wondering about where their next meal will come from. But the question now is why? Why does this old problem remain "new"?

 

Well, the answer is somewhere within the political-historical narrative of Malawi. That is, we all "know" that Kamuzu's decline emanated from donor aid freeze. We "know" that Muluzi's political demise emanated from donor aid freeze. And we know Bingu's administration - saved by his death - was most likely heading towards a catastrophic political implosion due to donor aid freeze. And therefore, if you want to stay in power, by all means, keep the donor aid flowing because - in the politicians opportunistic mind - there is a mystical relationship between staying in power and presiding over social tranquility, and donor aid inflows. The magic wand to keep the aid taps open - again according to that same opportunistic thinking - is somewhere in those words called "good" governance. Good governance keeps the money flowing, and keeps the political agenda to retain power going. This is why I earlier stated that when Bingu - and I gave him the benefit of the doubt - realized the fallacy of such leadership. He immediately turned on the donors and attempted to whin back Malawi's support. The missing piece however was that the economic crisis had been felt too deep in the gut and belly of every Malawian for anybody to listen to him. He found himself locked up in a "bad" governance corner. He had lost both the international audience and the Malawian audience. He was on stage facing an empty auditorium.

 

My comment is not to despute the relationship between the two conditions of aid and governance. My point is to expose it so that our politicians and leaders can appreciate the double-edged nature of that style of leadership. The aspirations of Malawians may not always align perfectly with donor requirements. Frequently, aid comes with it the requirement to implement projects that dont always bode well with nationals. However, the liquidity that accompanies aid pacifies those resistances for the meantime. However, when you proliferate development programmes as a result of increased volumes of aid, and hope to sustain political viability via the liquidity condition of aid, you quickly realize that you plant, with that aid, the very real potential for violent opposition when the liquidity condition is stalled. Here is where donor power sits. In which case, the politician is his or her own biggest enemy in the long run. I do not yet know the immediate political solution to this problem. However, in the long run, it is clear that political stability can be better maintained when the principle sources of government revenue originate from within the state than from without. Bingu attempted to do this upon realizing the fallacy of donor-tune-led politics. However, because of the extreme liquidity crunch in Malawi, he had nothing politically viable to pacify an already agitated people - people he himself had alienated from himself when he danced to the tune of the world while he ignored the realities of his own country. Secondly, political stability is more certain in environments in which sovereignty is exercised directly by the legitimate arms of our democratic government. For president Joyce Banda, it would assist her a great deal to turn away from the international commitments and focus more on the audience that ultimately decides her fate - the Malawian people. If she can successfully identify herself with them, then she will find herself better able to sell her reformist message, and minimize rhetorical polarizations, and ultimately find strong support even in times when the her governance might be considered "bad" or hard on the belly. I believe therein lies a sustainable form of good governance. And man! it sounds so familiar. In fact, it sounds like "constitutional governance" doesnt it?

Therefore, ironically, political leadership in Malawi has more to lose from being undemocratic than being democratic. Democracy enhances citizen-sovereignty, connects leadership more realistically with the citizenry via institutions, and disperses responsibilities more broadly and away from them being concentrated on the person of the president. Furthermore, it sustains the much needed inflows for the aching bellies in our country. And in the long run, places our country on a sustainable path towards self-sufficiency, a further condition for political stability. But hey, thats about it on Governance and Aid in Malawi as I presently see it. Our political leadership need not dance to the tune of external actors more than they need to commit themselves to the just and moral implementation of our Supreme Law - The Constitution of the Republic of Malawi. Hmmmm... Just a thought.