If you asked Peter Mutharika for his opinion of the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) in May 2014, he would have told you that it was the most credible institution around.
He would have added that the name MEC was the sweetest song on the lips of those whose political sympathies lie with Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Now, apparently, the credibility that was supposedly the defining feature of the elections management body is gone, or at least it is in serious danger of being eroded. That is according to Mutharika who has chastised the commission for messing up its finances, a charge MEC chairperson Maxon Mbendera flatly shrugs off.
It will take a while to get to the bottom of what happened to our money at MEC, but what is clear is that, contrary to the President’s fears that allegations of financial mismanagement could undermine the commission’s integrity, I want to submit that the issue will not erode MEC’s credibility.
The reason is that, to begin with, MEC has no credibility to lose. You don’t lose what you don’t have.
For understandable reasons, Mutharika and DPP were largely mute regarding MEC’s credibility during the latter and tense stages of the tripartite elections as the commission stumbled its way through the chaos of the polls.
As beneficiaries of the disarray, it was in the best interests of the President and DPP to avoid killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. It did not matter to them that the little of what passed for credibility for MEC disappeared at that point.
What remains now is not for MEC to preserve its credibility, but to recover it. Hopefully, that will happen, but if the commission’s tortured history is any guide, we will have to wait for eternity to have an elections institution we can trust.
Save for the 1993 referendum as well as the general elections of 1994 and 2009, the rest of the major elections that MEC has managed have been disasters, to say the least.
From outright fraud to shambolic electoral administration, we have witnessed a questionable MEC mismanage one election after the other. So, if indeed the President is genuinely worried about the credibility of the commission, he should not only focus on the money that could not be accounted for.
More importantly, he should look himself in the mirror and honestly reflect on how he benefitted from MEC’s dubious handling of the elections that ushered him into power.
Naturally, he will not do that because for our politicians there is no unequivocal definition of a competent electoral management body. In our context, whether MEC is competent or incompetent depends on who benefits from its chaotic management of elections and who loses out on the goodies. In his current position, Mutharika would be hard pressed to cast a stone at MEC for its administration of the 2014 elections.
This explains why installing a pliable head of MEC is the overriding priority of political parties that have just won elections.
It also provides insights into the never-ending battles over how MEC commissioners should be recruited, whether through nominations by political parties or via presidential appointments. It all comes down to the desire to create avenues for manipulating the electoral institution for partisan benefits.
Given this background, I am not sure about the prospects of the proposal that commissioners should be engaged based on an open selection process using a panel of representatives that considers professional qualifications of the candidate.
The taskforce on electoral reforms has also floated the idea of using a selection panel to identify the chairperson of the commission.
Considering our ingrained partisan thinking on just about everything, it is debatable whether politics will not seep into the choice of the panel and the decisions it will make. In Malawi, MEC has assumed the status of the allimportant theatre of partisan politics.
Little wonder that the notions of administrative competence and political impartiality have largely not been part of the character of the commission. Without these essential elements of elections management, it is inconceivable that MEC would deliver credible elections.
For the 2014 elections, unless the fraud allegations swirling around are proved conclusively, I am inclined to believe that on the part of MEC, it was more a question of poor planning and forecasting than outright electoral fraud.
While I am reluctant to question Mbendera’s integrity, I am not suggesting that the absence of fraud is a sufficient indicator of credible elections. As we saw in 2014, poor management is as bad as electoral fraud. In fact, the chaos that originates from disorganisation is rich ground for election rigging.
As we move towards the 2019 elections, some of us keep wondering whether the commission will redeem itself enough from the disaster of 2014 to competently handle the high stakes game of power.
The commission’s patchy record in managing finances only adds to the gloomy outlook and raises further questions over its overall standing as an institution mandated to organise and manage elections.
My verdict is that unless something fundamental happens before the 2019 elections, the chaos of 2014 is almost a certainty. Like was the case in 2014 and thereafter, the price to MEC’s image, the credibility of the elections and the quality of governance will be steep.
Leave a Reply