By Patrick Mwanza
On your mark, get set, go! At least 23 political parties are off to the races from July 14 through to the September 16 elections. By then, Malawians are expected to have made up their minds on who should be entrusted to help them help themselves and perhaps, rewrite their own future and that of their children.
When someone wants to buy something, they often pause to assess the product, weigh its claims, and ask: Will this serve me well? Will it help me meet my goals? Is it worth the cost? If satisfied, and if the price is right, the buyer and seller shake hands, exchange value, and part ways happy.
But when it comes to politics, that’s not how the cookie crumbles, as James Hadley Chase would say.
So, what exactly are these two dozen political parties “selling”? What are they offering Malawians to justify trust for the next five years?
Every election cycle since 1994 — the dawn of multiparty democracy — Malawi has experienced this moment of choice. Before that, for three decades, it was a one-party state under the Malawi Congress Party (MCP). The 2025 elections were initially due in 2024, but the 2020 court-sanctioned re-run reset the calendar. The MCP-UTM-led Tonse Alliance defeated the incumbent Democratic Progressive Party then, but today, new coalition talks are back on the table.
The stakes are higher this time. The winning presidential candidate must secure 50 percent plus one vote. This has pushed parties into a frenzy to secure coalition partners. But what’s driving these alliances?
Zodiak TV’s Gabriel Kamlomo posed this to political scientist Dr. Boniface Dulani: Are these coalitions based on shared ideology or vision?
No, said Dulani. “The key obstacle in forming alliances is the fight over who becomes running mate. Politicians put themselves ahead of the people.”
He adds that issues like electricity blackouts, fuel scarcity, and foreign exchange shortages are not top of mind for the parties. Rather, the focus is on who gets what position, not on addressing Malawi’s deeply rooted, even chronic, problems.
Let’s break down the meaning of ‘chronic’. In the case of chronic illnesses, experts say, these are conditions that didn’t just start; they’ve been present for a long time. The goal is no longer to cure, but to manage them and prevent further deterioration. One such condition in Malawi is hunger, which remains an enduring problem that only one government has successfully addressed since the advent of multiparty democracy.
Is anyone campaigning to solve this for good? Or are politicians merely singing along with Bob Marley’s “Them Belly Full (But We Hungry)”, Jah Cure’s “Corruption”, or Culture’s “Poor People Hungry” — songs that lament cyclical suffering — while the likes of Chronixx call for a militant spiritual uprising in “Here Comes Trouble”?
Back to the point of alliances: where’s the ideological clarity? What separates one party from another?
Finding the difference among political parties is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Dulani argues that the large number of political parties in Malawi reflects a lack of clearly defined visions or ideological goals. In many cases, parties are built around individuals rather than shared principles. Once that individual leaves the scene, members often scatter in different directions, seeking a new political home or purpose.
Dulani referenced French political scientist Jean-François Bayart, who popularized the term “politics of the belly” to describe post-colonial African politics where leaders – they exploit followers’ weak points – use state power for personal gain and reward loyalists rather than address the needs of the people.
The hunger for power is clear, but the parties, including those in Malawi, struggle to define their beliefs or how they would lead if given a chance.
Some leaders, however, push back against this view.
Enoch Chihana, leader of the Alliance for Democracy (Aford), recently told Times TV that his party identifies as social democrats; a political ideology that seeks a balance between capitalism and social welfare.
Capitalism, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is an economic system where trade and industry are privately owned and operated for profit. In contrast, social welfare within social democracy emphasizes social justice and equality, with the government actively involved in ensuring access to services like education and healthcare.
The United Democratic Front (UDF), on the other hand, describes itself as liberal democrats, emphasizing individual rights, limited government, and constitutional protections.
According to Investopedia, a limited government refers to a political system in which power is legally restricted to prevent abuse and safeguard individual liberties. While both ideologies – liberal democracy and social democracy – recognize the role of government, the key difference lies in approach: liberal democrats prioritize personal freedom and creating an enabling environment for individuals to improve their circumstances, with government support, not government direction.
But how meaningful are these labels to the average Malawian?
“I don’t understand what any of that means,” said Rick Chimbalanga, a retired civics teacher now running a business on the brink of collapse. “MCP has ‘ngodya zinayi: umodzi, kumvera, kukhulupirika ndi kusunga mwambo’ [four cornerstones: unity, obedience, loyalty and discipline.] Do those solve forex shortages?”
Chimbalanga may not fully grasp the political philosophy of the MCP but as the country’s oldest party, in existence for over six decades, it can be broadly described as conservative. According to Britannica, conservatism as a political philosophy emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices: “Conservatives favor institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability.”
This may help explain why the MCP initially resisted the shift from one-party rule to multiparty democracy. And when it comes to the economy, conservatives generally support a smaller government role in the economy, favoring free markets – less regulations – over state intervention (laws to protect the public). They extend this view to social welfare, preferring limited government aid and private solutions. On spending, conservatives often prioritize national security (military spending) over broad social programs.
Chimbalanga’s difficulty in understanding party differences can be seen in the context of Malawi’s political history. As a young democracy still developing its institutions after decades of dictatorship, the country lacks a strong culture of ideological clarity. That said, his frustration also points to the heart of the issue: voters want practical solutions, not abstract ideologies or internal coalition squabbles.
As Dulani put it, Malawians would be better served if political parties focused less on who gets what position and more on solving real, urgent problems.
Until then, the “politics of the belly” will continue to shape not only coalitions, but the lives of the very people politicians claim to serve.
