I
agree with you that federalism in the strict sense of the concept may not be a
panacea for our political problems as its most fervent proponents would have us
believe. The politics of regions and ethnicity in Malawi needs a more nuanced
understanding. There is nothing scientific about our borders. They, like our
state boundaries, were drawn up by the colonial powers without regard to any ethnic
configuration whatsoever. Regionalism is not, therefore, an inevitable
consequence of the regional boundaries that we have but a socially constructed
phenomenon that fortifies and feeds into our patrimonial politics. Accordingly,
there is absolutely no guarantee that folks from the 3 regions will not retreat
into their even small sub-ethnic cocoons once the regional boundaries were done
away with. So for arguments sake, if the Northern Region was to become an
autonomous region, it wouldn't be long before the minority tongas, nkhondes, nyakyusas (you can add the many sub-ethnic groups
that inhabit the region) started complaining of being excluded from the
political process by the region’s majority ethnic group. Insidious fault-lines
have got a way of being conveniently peppered over by the uniting presence of a
common cause and or enemy. Closer to home, the tragic case of South Sudan
should offer us all a sobering lesson. Against the mainly Arabic and Islamic
political forces of the North, the darker peoples of the South found it easier
to band together and demand their independence. But once the same had been
secured, the thinly veiled ethnic fissures were to spectacularly explode. Folks
who had hitherto fought side by side against a common enemy turned their
weapons against each other in brutish slaughter. Now the very existence of
their nascent state has been imperilled. My point is, folks from the 3 regions
should not be naive enough to think that their own desired politically
autonomous regions will be utopias and free from tribalistic rancor.
In
addition, like DD Phiri, I have grave doubts about the viability of
micro-states within a federal Malawi. Size can be a determinant for the
viability of a state. Several political science scholars, for instance, have
surmised that several African states have struggled to develop because they are
simply not viable as states due to their tiny geographic size. Why? Well, the
tinier the state the less likely it is that it will have the resources with
which to take off and sustain itself development wise. That is why, perhaps
[and holding all things constant!] Malawi would have been much better if it had
been part of the larger states of Zambia, Mozambique and or Tanzania. So folks
who want the North to be a micro autonomous state within a federal Malawi
should ask themselves some tough question: is the region viable as an
autonomous state? Does it have the resources with which to develop itself in a
sustainable fashion? How and from where would the state government raise the
revenues to meet its social-contract obligations to its citizens? The same can
be asked of all the regions in fact. If one pays some sober attention to these
questions, then one realizes that the matters of size of Malawi vis-a-vis the
viability of a federal state as raised by DD Phiri cannot be cast aside with
the casual indifference of some of the supporters of federalism.
That
said, the debate about federalism and the rather surprising traction that it
has gained is symptomatic of deep seated disaffection with the status quo. I
personally believe that the grievances of folks from the Centre and North (at
least for the time being) are not without justification. They are worth paying
attention to before they find expression in more destructive forms. But maybe a
Federal State may not be a way to go. We could start by ensuring that power really
devolves to the lowest levels possible through decentralization. If say
district/town/city councils had more say in the provision of social amenities
such as roads, hospitals and education together with the control over relevant
resources, then maybe some regions would not complain of being denied
development. We could also introduce another tier of political authority at say
provincial level they way they have in South Africa. Given the right
conditions, these provincial governments could counter the central government.
We should also reform our electoral system by requiring a President to be
elected by an absolute majority. If a
President knew that he needed more than half of the voters to vote for him to
stay in power, then I doubt if he would govern in a manner that was only
pleasing to an enclave of his tribesmen. An electoral system which made it
extremely difficult for one party to govern without a coalition would for these
reasons also be preferred.
P.S.
Isn't it amazing that we the colonized peoples continue to struggle with the
legacy of colonialism decades after our supposed independence? From Iraq to
Sudan to the tiny state of Malawi, the evidence suggests that we will continue
to pay for the folly of straight-line maps drawn by imperialists without any
regard to 'nationalistic sensitivities'.
