Welcome to Malawi!

This blog is about my life in Malawi and how it relates to the lives of the other 13 million people in this country. Each and every day it gets a little more interesting. Thoughts, stories, moments, ups, and downs. As I learn more and more what it means to have your life in Malawi, I will share it with you, and I hope to hear your reactions.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

A Mantra of Peace in Malawi: “Chisankho Cha Mtendere. Inde Tingathe.”

What does this mean? It means: “Peaceful Elections. Yes, we can.” This bumper sticker/ banner tagline has been ubiquitous on minibuses in Malawi for months leading up the federal election that just took place last week. On the back of minibuses and in gas stations, etc, we’ve seen it a lot. “Peaceful Elections. Yes, we can.” Here is the English version (note the partnership between the Malawi Electoral Commission and the Minibus Owners Association of Malawi):




And yes they did. I have gathered that people in Malawi have a certain sense of pride that the federal election, which ran last Tuesday, May 19, went off without a hitch in terms of political violence or other such disturbances.

“Malawians don’t like to die, or to kill. We will be fine.”

This was the response I got from a Malawian Organizational Development practitioner I know (a truly awesome guy) when I asked him, “do you think we will succeed at having ‘chisankho cha mtendere?”

I asked the same question of the Freshwater accountant a few weeks ago, and he told me this (for a bit of context, Muluzi = former President of Malawi, first President from Malawi’s first free elections in 1994; Binghu = President since 2004 who just won another 5 year term in 2009; Banda = Dictator President of Malawi from independence in 1964 until democracy in 1994):

“The countries that have those kinds of problems only have them when the governmental parties have their own militia forces. In Malawi the parties don’t have those things. Think back to 2008, when Muluzi was being accused of trying to stage a coup to overthrow the President, Binghu wa Multhalika. The Malawian Police picked him up at the airport and escorted him to his home with a warning not to do anything.


It was at this time that we could have seen violence in Malawi. If Muluzi’s party had had their own militia, then we could have seen a clash between Muluzi’s forces and the Malawian police. But he did not have that, so it was fine.”

Good thing. The last thing anyone wants in Malawi is for people to start killing each other. Malawi has enough to worry about as it is.

And the next day at work after the election, sure enough the accountant came to me and said: “You see? No problems.”

In addition, on the minibus the other day, I was chatting with someone about the election, and he told me that Zimbabwe and Kenya need to learn some lessons from Malawi.

People in Malawi are proud of the way their election went in 2009.

All of this begs the question: what’s the difference between a country like this one and the others that have such problems? If you’ve read “The Bottom Billion” by Paul Collier, you’ll know that there is a correlation between countries being resource rich and having histories of civil war. Whoa! What’s the deal with that?

At first glance, I’d say that Collier’s resource-civil war correlation is counter intuitive, at least to me. If countries have more money to work with, shouldn’t they be that much better equipped to develop and keep the peace? All that civil war stuff must be about oppressive governments, tribal conflict, and freedom fighters, right? Well, it might be just a bit more complicated than that. Collier’s observation also underscores how complex development is: clearly, it’s not only about money, it is about SYSTEMS of people functioning and not functioning. Pouring more money into Malawi or anywhere else is simply not a sufficient action for successful development, even if it is easier to demonstrate as a tangible action. If you ask what a country is doing for development, they usually answer with a dollar figure.

Collier argues that the people who fight these wars of “justice” against oppressive powers are often just out to gain as much power and wealth as anyone else, so they fight for the power backed by access to the resources that are abundant in the country. They target poor young adolescent men at suggestible times of their lives with no other source of income. “Grab a gun and some sunglasses. You’ll have money, women, and respect.” At the age of 13, I know at least a few young men who would be tempted. And if it becomes the norm in your country or among your peers, you have to imagine it’s even harder to say ‘no’.

Does that mean we should count our lucky stars that Malawi is very resource scare (save for some uranium which is apparently being mined up north, but I don’t know too much about it). If we had a bunch of gold, copper, oil*(see star below), or diamonds that people were finding all over the country, would we have seen blood spilled in Malawi? Not according to the people of this country. People generally here stand firm that Malawians are peaceful people. There is pride behind that statement. Well placed pride, if you ask me. If a country has anything to be proud of, having a reputation and a self-perception as a peaceful group of people is a pretty good one.

*Google "Sudan GDP per capita", then Google "Malawi GDP per capita".

Violence is certainly not heard of in Malawi, nor are large militia. During the end of the reign of Kamuzu Banda, the dictatorial ruler who was a self declared “President for Life” in Malawi from 1964 until 1994, he was at the command of a large group of militia called the Malawi Pioneers. Muluzi was the one who eventually took over in the country’s first free elections in 1994, and Muluzi’s party never had any such militia, so there was never any clash. The Banda administration is known (or at least talked about) to have used violence, murder, and forced exile in their political tactics, so it’s not as if violence is a completely alien concept in Malawian politics. Now imagine, if Muluzi’s party had had access to some kind of major source of income (such as a resource or, opening another can of worms, some foreign support…) what might have happened? Maybe nothing, but according to Paul Collier’s method of analysis, possibly something.

Collier is a skilled and experienced economist and a good writer, but I get a sense that his understanding of people and development is a little mathematical. By Collier’s equations, Malawi would have been more likely to end up in a civil war if there was any latent money in the system, such as resource money. But since Malawi is so poor, the likelihood of a civil war is low. This is Collier’s math, and it can be hard to argue with numbers.

But I bet Paul has never shared a bowl of nsima with a family and prayed for peace, prosperity, and forgiveness, or carried water alongside dozens of women and children doing their daily chores, or made bricks with a hoe and clay in a village. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing Paul Collier: I think his book gave a really great macro-economic perspective on things. But I am asking a question about people: how deep do our values run? If you are reading this, chances are you’ve never been a child soldier. Think about this, please really try to think about it because I really want to hear peoples’ opinions: under what circumstances can you imagine picking up an AK-47 and joining a roving army of militia? Canada is so far removed from these realities that this is probably pretty hard to answer, but try to think about it.


Because, the thing is, Malawi is not that far removed from these realities. That’s why we made the signs: “Chisankho cha Mtendere. Inde tingathe.” If it was a given that the signs wouldn’t be needed, they wouldn’t have made them in the first place.

If Malawi can, why can’t everyone else?

Thanks for reading,

~Mike


P.S. Sorry I missed by 3 week self-imposed deadline for new posts.
 
/* New Code with the Analytics stuff */ /* End of new Code with the Analytics stuff */