Abstract
Though Malawian democracy could still be described as in transition from authoritarianism, it has enabled an atmosphere for critical debate of and dissent against seemingly popular opinions, which was not possible during the authoritarian rule of former life president, Dr. H. K. Banda, 1964–1994. This article examines politicised cultural populism in Malawi under the dictatorship and democracy in comparative terms. President Banda, as a political populist, appropriated culture to legitimate and validate his political power as well as to cultivate popular support from the majority of ordinary people. Following reforms towards democracy since 1992, his successors have also tended towards populist politics by similarly appropriating culture and cultural activities, among other means, to cultivate popular support from mostly ordinary people for their regimes. Such politicised cultural populism involves adopting traditional roles, cultural symbols and images of power such as praise-titles, and participating in cultural activities such as traditional dances. This article examines the efforts of President Bingu wa Mutharika in the democratic dispensation to appropriate cultural artefacts used by Banda during a dictatorship in order to cultivate popular support for his regime. The article argues that Bingu's efforts at politicised cultural populism are constrained, among other factors, by the nature and climate of democratic politics mainly because democracy, unlike a dictatorship, enables critical debate and the questioning of political leader's behaviour and their motives.
While the term populism in its ordinary meaning refers to politics which reflects the opinions and interests of the ordinary people, its negative connotations suggest efforts to gain the support of ordinary people through cheap political means, or even deception. Thus, in politics populism sometimes raises questions about the sincerity and integrity of the political leaders and implies taking advantage of the common people. In this article, I use populism with its negative connotations and by politicised cultural populism I refer to the use of culture for purposes of political populism.
Malawi, from independence in 1964 up to the advent of democracy in 1994, was governed by the single-party dictatorship of president for life Dr. H. K. Banda and the Malawi Congress Party (MCP). The dictatorship used coercive methods to maintain control over the population that included detention without trial, forced membership of the only party allowed in Malawi, MCP, and draconian censorship laws that curtailed freedom of speech and the press. However, despite this, the regime was also hegemonic in that it cultivated the consent of a substantial part of the population, especially the grassroots (Chirambo 2005). It is as hegemony that the regime appropriated cultural artefacts drawn from the cultural traditions of the people of Malawi such as praise-titles that were used for president Banda to legitimise him and his leadership. These culturally oriented praise-titles referred to specific personal attributes Banda supposedly possessed and evoked his historical roles in Malawi as well as his adopted traditional roles that became part of his leadership style. Banda also patronised and participated in traditional dances, performed as cultural activities at political functions in his honour, which helped him build an intimate and fraternal relationship with the people.
Banda's populist politics in Malawi is a trend that most post-colonial African leaders have used. Most African leaders that led their various countries to independence adopted the one-party form of government that was inherently dictatorial but was bolstered by politicised cultural symbols and practices to legitimise and popularise the regimes. Some leaders adopted a role that Kirk-Greene calls “culture-hero” where they self-consciously delved into the annals of the cultural history of their nations to draw parallels and suggest continuities between heroic figures of the past and themselves. Some presented themselves as custodians of the culture of the country though in most cases they simply promoted their own specific ethnic cultures into national cultures. For example, in Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta is accused of having promoted Kikuyu culture into a national culture (Kirk-Greene 174). In Malawi, Banda is accused, of establishing Chewa hegemony through the adoption of Chichewa as the national language, among other things (Kishindo 1994, Moyo 2002). In other words, by promoting their ethnic cultures, these leaders suppressed other cultures of their countries.
The cultural populist politics of Banda came under serious scrutiny during the transition to democracy, especially between 1992 and 1994, and were seen as having masked the violence of his dictatorship. Some of the praise-titles that had been used to express awe and admiration of Banda as a brave warrior such as Mkango [Lion] were now seen as having aided and justified Banda's preying on innocent and vulnerable Malawians whom he either threw into detention without trial or killed. Even the political and popular songs that had previously been used to praise and worship him were now used to castigate Banda and question the legitimacy of his leadership (Chimombo and Chimombo 1994). In other words, the politicised cultural populism of the dictatorship of Banda and the MCP was severely challenged during the transition to democracy and set the trend in which people try to question populist politics in Malawi as a democracy.
The challenges for the democratic regimes after Banda, beyond winning elections, include how to establish their own legitimacy and popular support from the people without being seen as being merely political populists. While winning elections gives the leaders the mandate to form government this does not automatically translate into legitimacy and popular support among the majority of the people: particularly because of claims of fraud in most of the elections. Apart from the first democratic elections after dictatorship in 1994, there have always been complaints of electoral fraud that have ended up in courts in all subsequent elections in Malawi. These include complaints that the democratic electoral process is often heavily manipulated in favour of the ruling parties through abuse of state machinery (such as the police), state resources and control of the public media. The so-called democratically elected regimes therefore often find themselves engaged in populist politics where cultural traditions and practices is one of the means towards political populism in order to enhance their legitimacy. The case of the post-Banda regime of president Bingu wa Mutharika in Malawi shows that he seeks to emulate Banda's politicised cultural populism by, among other things, salvaging for himself some of the culturally oriented traditional praise-titles used for Banda to establish his own popular support and legitimacy. He has also continued to use traditional dances at his public functions and on occasions he joins in the dancing as Banda did. As such, President Bingu wa Mutharika is increasingly seen as a protégé of Banda.
This article examines the traditional praise-titles used in the dictatorship by Banda that President Bingu wa Mutharika has appropriated for himself in the democratic dispensation to explore the limitations that democracy places on such politicised cultural populism. It also examines the use of traditional dances as cultural activities through which Banda established a fraternal and intimate relationship with the people. This article argues that democracy has rendered these activities less effective as avenues for populist politics in Malawi.
President Bingu wa Mutharika's need for populist politics came from the precarious political situation in which he placed himself soon after being elected president in 2004 under the sponsorship of the United Democratic Front (UDF) of former president Bakili Muluzi. The UDF and Muluzi replaced MCP and Banda in the first democratic elections in 1994. In 2004, Muluzi, after failing to change the constitution to allow his re-election for a third term, handpicked Bingu wa Mutharika and imposed him on UDF as the presidential candidate in the elections. Muluzi and the UDF helped him to win the presidency. However, Bingu ditched the UDF and formed his own political party, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 2005 which he declared to be the new governing party. He pushed the UDF into an opposition party in parliament. He determined to lead a minority government in parliament where the majority of the MPs belonged to the UDF and the MCP. The UDF, disgruntled by Bingu's actions, was determined to impeach Bingu out of the presidency with the help of MCP. They petitioned the Speaker of Parliament to evoke Section 65 of the Constitution of Malawi which forbids MPs to “cross the floor” i.e. leave parties that sponsored them into parliament to join other parties represented in parliament. Bingu was threatened as this would have cut the patched up numbers of the DPP in parliament and expose his presidency to real impeachment possibilities. This threat, plus the fact that Bingu and his party lacked a political grassroots infrastructure to cultivate popular support and establish a power base, led Bingu to seek ways to undermine the opposition. While he was able to stall the process of expulsion from parliament of MPs who had crossed the floor to support him through protracting court battles and by using his constitutional powers to prorogue parliament whenever the issue of Section 65 was raised, it was popular support of his regime from the ordinary people that he needed most.
It is also noteworthy that in the first term, Bingu governed under the shadow of illegitimacy because of his refusal to have presidential fresh elections to confirm his own mandate following his ditching of UDF and forming his own party while in government. His own popular support was untested. Bingu therefore needed any form of popular support he could get from the people directly and it is this that led him to adopt the cultural populism that had characterised Banda's reign. He salvaged Banda's positive elements including his praise-titles to claim qualities for himself that would help him to connect with the people and gain their affection. In addition, while Muluzi and the UDF had removed Banda's name from several public infrastructures in the euphoria of the transition to democracy, Bingu reinstated the name so as to be seen as respecting the history of the country and honouring the founder of the nation - thereby gaining popular support from the people. It seems Bingu wa Mutharika realised that despite being a dictator, Banda had maintained an intimate relationship with ordinary people who regarded him as a “culture hero”. It is in these efforts that Bingu emulates Banda, endeavours that I argue are fraught with limitations in Malawi as a democracy.
Politicised Cultural Populism Using Praise-Titles
Culturally oriented praise-titles are political symbols that connect leaders to history, tradition and culture. Hence they are critical instruments of politicised cultural populism. Hayward and Dumbuya, quoting Murray Edelman, argue that
“the importance of political symbols rests on what they evoke in the minds of people – whether pride, hostility, satisfaction, reassurance, or support – because they are associated with particular events, types of actions, deeds, benefits. It is not so much the symbols themselves that are significant, but, the meanings that people attribute to them” (1983: 648).
Le Vine (1977) had early on argued similarly, and most specifically in relation to the praise-titles that most leaders in Africa adopt for themselves, that those titles relate to role-images and relationships the leaders and the people maintain. He suggests that praise-titles linked to role-images “serve to create or maintain affect between themselves [leaders] and their followers, to induce submission, acquiescence or support, as well as to satisfy their own role-cognitions” (Le Vine 632). For this reason, Le Vine further argues that these praise-titles are chosen for their evocative power especially of “powerful historical, traditional or cultural connections” (Le Vine 632–3). In other words, praise-titles are intended to reflect or acknowledge the leaders personal achievements often in their historical roles in the service of their countries; personal attributes or qualities the leaders supposedly possess that qualify them above everyone else to lead, and describe the relationships the leaders cultivate with the people. As such, these praise-titles are important elements of political populism. They help legitimise and popularise the leaderships.
The praise-titles former life president and dictator H. K. Banda appropriated included Nkhoswe [Guardian, Protector and Provider], Ngwazi [Conqueror], Chilera walanda [He Who Cares for Orphans], Chata wa Fuko la Malawi [Father and Founder of the Malawi Nation], and Mkango [Lion]. These praise-titles, which ostensibly reflected his personal attributes or qualities and acknowledged his historical leadership roles especially in leading the country to independence and the personal relationship he established with his followers, had cultural connotations. These arguably helped him establish affection with his people as well as cause awe amongst them and command their submission. Besides the above titles were praise-titles with religious connotations such as Moses, Saviour/Messiah. In this article I examine the praise-titles Nkhoswe and Ngwazi because they are the ones that Bingu, his protégé, has also appropriated.
Banda in 1946 set down what he understood by the term Nkhoswe which goes together with the term Mbumba in a preface to Our African Ways of Life, which he co-edited with Rev. Cullen Young, as follows:
“All the male members of a Chewa family on the mother's side are nkhoswe to all the female members on the mother's side. That is to say, if you are a male, all your mother's brothers, all your own brothers from the mother, you yourself, and all sons of your mother's sister are nkhoswe to your mother and to her mother, to all of her full sisters, to all daughters of your mother. … And being nkhoswe to them [mbumba] you, as a male and no matter how young you are, are a Responsible Relative. … When you say ‘They are my mbumba’, or, ‘She is my mbumba’, you are admitting a responsibility in law; you are not claiming them or her as particular sort of relative such as aunt, cousin, sister or daughter. All nkhoswe are responsible in law not only for the well-being but also for the good conduct of their mbumba. … Nkhoswe [is] an “advocate” and a “sustainer” of his mbumba.” (13) [Italics mine.]
President Banda adopted this role of Nkhoswe when he became president of Malawi and referred to himself as Nkhoswe No. 1 for all the women of the country whom he called his Mbumba. Banda then cultivated and nurtured a fraternal and very patronising relationship with the women of Malawi from a notion he adopted from the matrilineal traditions of his ethnic group, the Chewa of Central Malawi. Banda was not only familiar with the notion and practice of Nkhoswe-Mbumba but would himself have been Nkhoswe of his female members of his household in his community. It should be mentioned that though similar notions of Nkhoswe exist among other ethnic groups in Malawi, they do not describe exactly the same structure of relationships as among the Chewa. Therefore, apart from the context of dictatorship where no one questioned his populist politics, the fact that the term has etymological and cultural roots within his own cultural traditions, gave legitimacy to his claims that he was Nkhoswe No. 1 for the women of Malawi thereby facilitating the easy adoption of the praise-title for himself.
Banda's personal charisma and rapport with the ordinary masses also enabled him to give credence to his claims of being Nkhoswe. He defined and recognised the roles and responsibilities of Nkhoswe which he transferred to his leadership position as president of the country. Being a dictator, he did not distinguish between his personal and state resources hence easily mobilised state resources to fulfil his obligations of his role as Nkhoswe to his Mbumba. For example, he built houses for some of the most active women in the party, sponsored some of the women on educational trips abroad to countries such as the United Kingdom, Israel and Egypt, and Taiwan. Thus he demonstrated and fulfilled in practical ways his role and responsibilities as Nkhoswe to women of Malawi. These obviously served Banda well to amass the grassroots popular support so necessary to consolidate and maintain his dictatorship in Malawi as hegemony (Chirwa 2001, Chirambo 2005, 2006)
The idea of Banda as Nkhoswe just like that of Ngwazi, which I examine below, also benefitted immensely from promotion and institutionalisation through a hegemonic discourse in the public media such as the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC). The radio not only always heralded Banda's name with his praise-titles, but also aired several programmes of Mbumba music praising their Nkhoswe that included “Let the People Sing,” and “Kwacha Kwayera” [It's Dawn]. Besides, there were live broadcasts and re-broadcasts of all public functions where Banda appeared, which always included song and dance performances in which again Banda and the women re-enacted their roles and relationship of Nkhoswe and Mbumba. Such public functions also provided the opportunity, space, and time in which Banda engaged in fraternisation and paternal flirtation with his Mbumba whom he also took to entertaining at his State Palaces from time to time. The MCP also had organisational structures such as MCP Women's League, later complemented by Chitukuko cha Amayi mMalawi (CCAM) that institutionalised Mbumba as a nationally identifiable group with a privileged and exploitable relationship with Banda and access to national resources. Under the democratic dispensation in Malawi, President Bingu wa Mutharika has appropriated Nkhoswe for himself and through it wants to build a special relationship with the women of Malawi that could be seen as populist politics.
On 14 May 2006, President Bingu wa Mutharika, in his eulogy for Banda when he unveiled a monumental mausoleum on Banda's grave in the capital city Lilongwe, a mausoleum which arguably was built with the intention of earning popular support from the ordinary people (Chirambo 2008), he observed that since the death of Banda women in Malawi had lost their Nkhoswe. He then declared that he himself will now be their Nkhoswe and the women will be called Amayi a Bingu, as the equivalent of Mbumba. The following week, Janet Karim, in an open letter to President Bingu wa Mutharika in the Sunday Times [Malawi] which she titled, “Thank You Nkhoswe No. 1”, hailed Bingu for coming to the rescue of women whom she claimed had become destitute without a Nkhoswe, stating,
“Many women have been suffering gruesome acts of barbarity of abuse and violence, just because they are women. The laws did not even sufficiently protect or prevent such abuse. Much hatred and scorn has been our lot for many years since the first Nkhoswe left the high office of state president. We were the butt of jokes, ridicule and all sorts of malicious diatribe.”
In paying tribute to Bingu, she says,
“We write to sincerely appreciate and thank you Bwana [Sir] President for accepting our plea to make women in Malawi your Mbumba during the recent official opening of the Kamuzu Banda Mausoleum in Lilongwe last Sunday.”
Since that declaration to transform women as your mbumba, we feel very comforted. We feel loved and appreciated from the Man of the High Office here in the land.
As your mbumba we now accord you the honour that was accorded Dr. Kamuzu Banda who was our first Nkhoswe Number One. Sir, you are now the new Nkhoswe Number One. And we truly salute you for this brave move.
As the Nkhoswe to all women – of every race, age and faith – we are a protected, appreciated and loved gender.” (Sunday Times, 21 May 2006)
On the day Bingu inaugurated Banda's mausoleum, Janet Karim saluted Banda whom she fondly called Nkhoswe and profusely thanked Bingu for honouring him (Sunday Times, 14 May 2006). Karim in the letters above claims to speak for the women of Malawi and sought to confirm Bingu as their Nkhoswe with all the responsibilities it entails towards all women. She pledges the support of all women for Bingu. Bingu in this way would be ascending directly into Banda's position, the first Nkhoswe, and through it he too, hopefully, would cultivate popular support of the women and the grassroots of the country, so important given his embattled relationship with the opposition dominated parliament. In Bingu's first term, for example parliament, apart from threatening him with impeachment, refused to pass the national budget in 2006 and 2007, demanding that Bingu agree to expel MPs who had crossed the floor. His relationship with parliament was at best acrimonious. Arguably, therefore, Bingu's appropriation of the praise-title Nkhoswe for himself in a democratic dispensation is part of politicised cultural populism to counter threats of an opposition dominated parliament. The call by the women for Mutharika to adopt them as their Nkhoswe was directly inspired by Bingu's own claims of being a protégé of Banda whom he not only honoured with a mausoleum, but also by re-instating his name on public infrastructures where his predecessor, and now political nemesis, Bakili Muluzi had removed it. In addition, in May 2009, Bingu erected a statue of Banda in the capital city, Lilongwe.
However, other than the propagation and promotion of the praise-titles in public media, Banda's dictatorial regime had the privilege that Banda's word was interpreted as law. Banda consistently and at every opportunity referred to women in Malawi as his Mbumba and clearly stated his responsibilities amongst which was to protect the women. He warned any one, especially men, of severe consequences if they abused his Mbumba. These were not empty threats, for often his over-zealous party Youth Brigade and the Malawi Young Pioneers (MYP), the MCP youth militias, with wide ranging powers including arresting and handing over to the police for detention individuals whom they suspected of disloyalty to Banda, the party or government, severely dealt with any one that did not obey Banda's word. The Youth Brigade and MYP operated above the law and were only answerable to Banda. They swore personal loyalty to Banda who was their Commander-in-Chief. The MYP also conducted espionage and hence are suspected to have been involved in the deaths of many people that disappeared under mysterious circumstances, believed killed and disposed of in forests and rivers (Chirwa 1994, Phiri 2000, Chirambo 2004).
In the democratic dispensation, President Bingu wa Mutharika can only protect the women using and remaining within the law and not by mere public pronouncements as Banda did. Unfortunately, the due process of the law and justice system does not often come to the rescue of the women quickly and fairly, an observation that Janet Karim above makes as well. Also, given the tainted image of party militia or youth brigades coming from the MCP era, parties are wary of reviving them for similar purposes. For example, the UDF established the Young Democrats which was seen as a resurrection of MCP youth militia, especially when they sometimes beat up opposition supporters and wanted to be treated as being above the law in a democratic dispensation. Their activities only damaged pretensions to democracy of the party. The DPP has hardly made any effort at establishing such a brigade. Bingu is thus constrained to operate within the parameters of the law to protect the women, as democracy demands. Bingu also has no unlimited access to national public resources that he can use as political largesse to fulfil his adopted role as Nkhoswe the way Banda did. This does not help the efforts at politicised cultural populism intended by the title Nkhoswe to women.
Democracy also entails that women are free to give allegiance to whomsoever they want, be it Bingu wa Mutharika as president or any leader of any political party or to no party leader at all. Hence Amayi a Bingu only captures those women who have chosen to support Bingu, who could call him their Nkhoswe. This means that he cannot extend it to all women of Malawi, Janet Karim's claims above notwithstanding.
Some other limiting factors besides democracy include the fact that Bingu, being a Lomwe from Thyolo district in the southern region, essentially makes claims to a predominantly and culturally specific Chewa title of Nkhoswe from his position and role as president of the country with no cultural pretensions to the title. His claims therefore lack cultural specificity or legitimacy the way they applied to Banda who was a Chewa by ethnicity. His efforts are seen as simply direct appropriations and approximations of Banda's title. Secondly, while Banda used Nkhoswe-Mbumba as corollary praise-titles, Bingu has designated the women as Amayi a Bingu as the equivalent of Mbumba. But Amayi a Bingu is a very generic term, lacking cultural specificity or connotations. The stem in Amayi, mayi, in its ordinary usage and meaning, refers to any woman in their role as mother or wife. It is also used to refer to the female sex in general. Thus the term Amayi a Bingu, which literally translates as “Bingu's women” or “Women who belong to Bingu” becomes Nkhoswe-Amayi a Bingu. This does not approximate the cultural meanings or connotations or the kinds of relationship in Nkhoswe-Mbumba that Banda appropriated and used to relate to his women. There is nothing in Amayi a Bingu that could suggest the dependency relationship between Bingu as President or Nkhoswe and women similar to that which characterised Banda and his Mbumba. All these factors limit if not undermine Bingu's efforts at politicised cultural populism.
Ngwazi is a praise title among the Ngoni people of northern and central regions of Malawi. It means Conqueror. It was given to Banda for being brave by vanquishing colonialists in order to win independence for Malawi and was then used exclusively for Banda by decree of the MCP where all praise-titles adopted for Banda would only be used to refer to him. In its cultural connotations, Ngwazi also implied that Banda was invincible, unconquerable. This title was used alongside other titles such as Mkango [Lion] and Moto [Fire], referring to shrewdness and ferociousness as attributes of Banda, all qualifying him to be the leader. Among the Ngoni and indeed in Malawi in general, bravery and valour are cherished qualities for a leader that makes him the protector of his own people. It should be mentioned that one reason Banda was called back to Malawi in 1958 was to take over the leadership of Nyasaland African Congress (NAC), a nascent independence movement, which needed a strong leader whom colonial authorities could respect and take seriously. Congress saw Banda as embodying these specific cultural and character attributes, and the praise-titles were used to drum up support for him in the country and help him gain legitimacy as the leader of the independence movement (Chipembere 2001).
With the title Ngwazi paired with Mkango [Lion] and Moto [Fire] Banda projected himself as invincible and courageous in his political conduct even after independence, particularly when he triumphed over his enemies, including his critics most of whom he threw into detention without trial or simply killed. Thus, it is arguable that his being called Ngwazi encouraged and even justified his vicious ferociousness as a dictator, though, for his supporters, he was demonstrating behaviour within their expectations of him. The context of dictatorship in which Banda operated provided for fulfilling such role-images without open criticism, something democracy does not provide for.
Bingu wa Mutharika was given the praise-title Ngwazi by the Ngoni people of Mzimba district in October 2008 for making what the traditional leaders said were “outstanding achievements and contributions in the development of the nation” (The Nation [Malawi], 7 October 2008), and for his “wise and pragmatic leadership” (Nyasa Times, online, 7 October 2008). Bingu was then given a lion's skin to symbolise the honour just like Banda had been given one when he was conferred the praise-title Ngwazi. The lion skin symbolises bravery, for, in olden times, the bearer of the praise-title would have earned it by killing a lion or a dangerous animal. The terms used to describe Bingu's eligibility for the praise-title are similar to those used for Banda even though Bingu may not have fought any battle in the manner Banda did. But given the context in which Bingu governed in his first term, 2004–2009, one can find undertones of his courage when he ditched his sponsoring party, the UDF, and succeeded in leading a minority government in a hostile parliament that bayed for his impeachment. After all, he was also called “Chitsulo cha njanji,” meaning he is as hard as steel.
The development success story accredited to Bingu includes a fertiliser subsidy programme which has helped poor farmers substantially increase their crop yield, especially maize, the staple food of the country. The above notwithstanding, and given the democratic atmosphere in the country, there has been criticism and cynicism about giving the praise-title Ngwazi to Bingu. Firstly, it is seen as simply populist politics especially in that it was conferred on him within the campaign for the 2009 presidential and parliamentary elections. Sembe Gondwe, a Nyasa Times columnist argued:
“Whoever premeditated the idea of calling President Bingu wa Mutharika ‘Ngwazi’ knew exactly what they wanted and got it right. … They had people in the villages in mind – These are people who vote en-mass. Mystify them (the villagers) you achieve your goal. …The minute people associate Ngwazi Kamuzu Banda and Bingu wa Mutharika their minds will be polluted politically.” (9 November 2008)
Put simply, Sembe believes that Bingu wa Mutharika or his henchmen must have orchestrated the praise-title to get people's popular support ahead of the general elections. Sembe also contends by implication that the desire in crowning Bingu Ngwazi was to place Banda and Bingu side by side, where Bingu is the rightful heir to Banda. Seen that way, Bingu could capitalise on Banda's cultural populism to establish his own, a process that amounts to mystifying Bingu and politically polluting the minds of ordinary people for the purpose of winning elections. Sembe Gondwe's assertion may not be far-fetched for on 14 May 2009, four days before the elections that Sembe alludes to above, Bingu unveiled Banda's statue in Lilongwe the plaque of which reads:
THIS STATUE OF THE LATE NGWAZI DR. HASTINGS KAMUZU BANDA PRIME MINISTER 1964–1966, FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MALAWI 1966–1994 FATHER AND FOUNDER OF THE MALAWI NATION WAS OFFICIALLY UNVEILED BY HIS EXCELLENCY NGWAZI DR. BINGU WA MUTHARIKA ON 14TH MAY 2009. (Italics mine).
For many, the staging of the unveiling of the statue and the statement of the plaque seemed not merely coincidental but things by which Bingu sought to gain popular support for the purpose of winning the elections. The statement that the statue of Ngwazi Banda was unveiled by Ngwazi Bingu establishes a direct connection between them, one succeeding the other.
Other critics suggest that making Bingu Ngwazi is only encouraging him towards a dictatorship like that of Banda. They call Bingu a copycat of Banda (Shonga and Chilobwe 2006), for whom praise-titles only encourage the dictatorial elements in him to follow in the footsteps of his dead mentor. The fear is that populism masks the real and sinister motives including the violence inherent in dictatorship. After all, at the very meeting where Bingu was crowned Ngwazi and in subsequent meetings, two cabinet ministers, Khumbo Kachali and Khumbo Chirwa, who seemed privy to the machinations to crown Bingu Ngwazi, openly called on Bingu to assume life presidency of the country as Banda had done (Nyasa Times, 31 October 2008). When Banda became life president not only did he eliminate all opposition to his rule but he also did not need to seek periodic fresh mandate from the people through elections. He became a dictator for life. Critics and opposition parties fear that Bingu will assume the same stature and kill democracy in Malawi. Hence it is not surprising that, apart from the public media which has often used the praise-title Ngwazi for Bingu with a sense of reverence, the private media and sometimes the general populace have used it with cynicism and even mockery of Bingu. George Kasakula, writing in Weekend Nation [Malawi] (6–7 December 2008), simply dismissed the title Ngwazi as irrelevant in a democratic dispensation. Emelyn Nyoni reports in Nyasa Times (29 October 2009) that opposition parties query the manner in which the title Ngwazi was bestowed on Bingu, claiming “leaders in the [northern] region made one of the ‘biggest blunders’ to give Wa Mutharika the title ‘Ngwazi’ without consulting widely”. Their complaint is about a lack of the transparency that democracy demands in dealing with issues of wider political signification in the country. Such cynicism and even criticism, allowed by the democratic atmosphere in the country, does limit the legitimising and popularising effect of these praise-titles. People are able to suggest sinister motives for acquiring such praise-titles and argue that such populist politics only mask the dictatorial behaviour that democracy rejects.
Dances and Dancing for Political Populism
Over and above culturally oriented praise-titles Banda used songs and traditional dances for populist politics and these were probably the most effective cultural instruments. At almost all public functions where Banda appeared with his people, songs and dances were a significant part of the programme, often using up to more than half of the time of the function. Various traditional dance groups from across the country made song and dance performances to praise and entertain Banda. However, rather than being entertained Banda routinely performed these songs and dances with the people and showed great enthusiasm. For example, he danced Ingoma with groups from Mzimba, Mchinji and Ntcheu. He danced and sang with women performing Chimtali, Chiwoda, Chimdidi, among other traditional dances. Almost all the songs were in praise of Banda while castigating his enemies or critics (Chirwa 2001, Chirambo 2006). In his speeches following such dancing, Banda often thanked the people for the dances, acknowledging how much he enjoyed them. He would also comment on the messages in the songs and sometimes the messages in the songs set the agenda and tone for his speeches. In that way, songs and dances became means through which Banda and the people cultivated an intimate and fraternal relationship as well as a dialogue with each other, making them critical instruments for instituting hegemonic discourse (Chirambo 2005, 2006). Thus the songs and dancing enabled Banda to gain legitimacy and popular support from the ordinary people hence they were arguably critical to what I call the politicised cultural populism of Banda. Traditional dances and songs continue to be part of the public functions in which President Bingu wa Mutharika is involved.
President Bingu wa Mutharika and even his predecessor, Bakili Muluzi, has tried, on occasion, to emulate Banda by joining in the dancing, especially with women. While most of the songs are the same old songs used for Banda but now substituted with Bingu's name, Bingu is not able to sing them. In most cases, like his predecessor, Muluzi, he remains seated on the VIP platform as a spectator without joining in the dancing and hardly acknowledges what is in the songs. For this reason, even Janet Karim, who has hailed Bingu wa Mutharika for accepting to be Nkhoswe for the women is nostalgic of the dancing and singing with Banda, arguing that “in recent years, men have jumped onto the dance floor to tango … but the aura is gone, the pomp and colour is not as vivid” (The Sunday Time 14 May 2006). The present politicians simply lack the idiosyncrasy of Banda that enabled him to freely sing and dance with his people. Thus songs and dances as cultural activities used for populist politics in Banda's era are hardly integral to the populist politics in the democratic dispensation even in those few moments that Bingu has tried to participate in them.
The other limiting factor in using traditional songs and dances for populist politics in Malawi as a democracy is, as Lisa Gilman (2001) suggests, the use of payment or rewards for performance at political functions. Traditional dance groups no longer perform songs of praise and dances at political functions just to entertain politicians even if it is the president; they expect and want to be rewarded with money or such other handouts as party cloth or T-Shirts. In the competitive politics that democracy entails, those performing traditional dances have realised that politicians and political parties need them to create an impression of their being popular and legitimate. They therefore know they are offering a service for which they could be paid. Thus politicians are forced to reward or pay for the songs of praise and dances at their functions or risk having no group come to perform for them. In this scenario, it has become difficult to affirmatively argue that the groups that dance or sing praise for the leaders at political functions do so because they believe the leaders are popular or want to make them popular despite receiving payments.
Also the fact that democracy entails competition between different politicians and political parties, all vying for support from the people, means that there are competing loyalties amongst the people. Most traditional dance groups now make themselves available to all parties, groups and politicians. They wear the appropriate attire of party cloth or T-Shirt for the politician or party at whose meeting they are performing and will do that with any other politician or party. In other words, the songs and dances are hardly an expression of loyalty to or means of popular support for a particular politician anymore. In addition, the fact that in Malawi as a democracy participation in traditional dances at political functions is voluntary means that parties have to use incentives such as money or handouts to bring dance groups to their meetings. In other words, cultural activities are no longer freely available for purposes of political populism but, as Gilman rightly observes, have to be purchased. Lwanda (2006) makes similar observations about the role of money in enabling political leaders to gain political patronage and buy support from the ordinary people. In other words, what is referred to as political popularity is “bought” rather than earned using cultural artefacts.
Conclusion
In Malawi president Bingu wa Mutharika's politicised cultural populism emulates former president Banda in several ways. However, democracy places real limitations on the success of such efforts. First, thirty years of Banda's populist dictatorship has produced a sceptical and highly suspicious population that is wary of real motives masked by political populism. People are aware of the potential lies and exploitative tendencies of politicians who take advantage of their support; support that put them into political positions without guarantees of any services or gratitude in return. For this reason, people now demand that politicians deliver on some of the promises even before they nominate or vote them into political positions. What's more, they ask for these services without a guarantee that they will nominate or elect them. It is therefore possible to see some of the development programmes within the context of populist politics, where politicians do them as an effort to show people that they could be trusted and with the desire to be voted for. This could also explain why political parties in Malawi as a democracy are not keen on local government elections that would strengthen local communities at city, municipal, or village level to govern themselves or to receive and use national resources for development programmes in their own constituencies. They have instead stuck to a centralised system which enables the president and the party in government to decide on the distribution of national resources to the communities and in the process give the impression that these resources emanate directly from the president himself or the party, portraying them as benevolent.
It is also arguable that people see acquisitions of cultural praise-titles in a democracy as nothing more than populist politics when the leaders hardly deserve the titles they claim and, as a result, the titles hardly inspire the awe and affection of the people. The press too in Malawi as a democracy, especially private media, is more cynical and even critical of what it sees as populist politics that are intended to deceive people by masking corruption and other exploitation by politicians in cultural symbols and practices. In other words, democratic politics provide an atmosphere in which politicised cultural populism and indeed populist politics is viewed with its negative connotations, thereby limiting its effectiveness as a means for cultivating popular support and legitimacy.