Some criticism is for your good, son.

There is something interesting Albert Einstein said in relation to nature, and I want to use that as a basis of this discussion. He said, “Look deep into nature and then you will understand everything better.”

First, I am not discussing physics; I am discussing the power of accommodating dissent. I will do this by giving a couple of illustrations over the magnitude of loss one suffers once one allows oneself to operate in a terrain without some dissent or criticism.

Albert Einstein was a great physicist whose contributions to physics make what physics is today. Interestingly, this great man was from Germany but it was for the US that the world came to know and appreciate his contributions to the field of physics. Einstein was a university professor in Berlin, but when a new government came into power in Germany, as a Jew, he decided to remain in the US where he was visiting. Adolf Hitler could never accommodate such a brilliant personality all because of his hatred of the race Einstein was—Jewish. If Hitler loved all men equally as does GOD, all the contributions of this great man could have been attributed to Germany.

The US is a hub of technology partly due to contributions of such men as Einstein.

In September 1964, Malawi, a new independent nation lost a crop of brilliant politicians all because they had criticised a man who thought was above criticism. If you look at the writings of these politicians we lost then, you would wonder what a nation this place could have been if it had nurtured that talent and skill and that forthrightness.

The Einstein’s quotation I gave at the beginning has a purpose to remind us to learn from nature the power of forces that restrain flow. In science, if there is no friction, there is no movement. This is why vehicles skid in water or ice, people slip foolishly on wet cement, et cetera et cetera. In the same way, a river must have some rocks on its bed to control its flow and so protect the life of that river as well as of the species down that river. Nature is full of examples that some friction is necessary for us to move forward or balance our movements.

Does a nation require some such force to balance itself? Certainly. A nation that refuses to accommodate dissent or criticism risks eating itself from the inside. Critics are a ‘nuisance’ sure, but we do need them, and it’s for our own good.

Not long ago, our President, Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika exchanged high words with one Kamlepo Kalua. Kamlepo’s sin was to remind the nation that some ministers, allegedly involved in corruption, were being shielded by the State House. In turn, State House gave him 24 hours to bring forth those names or shut up. Kamlepo responded by reminding the President, he, Kamlepo, does not give a damn to ultimatums, just as he, the President, abhors ultimatums. With this, the waters ran still again, for how long no one knows.

When this happened, some lunged in, siding with Kamlepo, others with the President. I decided to take a funny position throughout; I decided to give myself time to laugh at this tendency in us to very easily forget things meant to teach us a lesson.

I know you are surprised I could find all this interesting. Well, rewind with me your clocks just a little to 2012, sometime in April when Professor Bingu wa Mutharika passed on and a group of ministers met at night on direction.

The ministers involved, and among them was the current President, Professor Arthur Mutharika, came to be known as the ‘Midnight Six’. As soon as the new government, i.e. that of Dr Joyce Banda, came to power, the six were arrested on treason charges.

When good Kamlepo heard the six were being investigated on treason charges, he wasted no time; he quickly jumped to their defence, arguing that the former cabinet had legal mandate to converge and discuss the way forward following the unexpected death of President Bingu wa Mutharika. “My understanding is that the ministers met in good faith, they met to come up with clarity on what the Constitution says when a president has died while his Vice is not even part of cabinet. However, in the process there were some connotations of emotions but their arguments were legal and not treasonous,” Kamlepo said.

Kamlepo did not stop there; he went on to warn the new Government of Joyce Banda that if her government would go ahead prosecuting them, the case would end nowhere and Government would eventually stand to compensate them in millions. And since a Government in power never listens, Banda’s Government went ahead, and brought upon itself some huge burden, in the course, creating a lot of sympathy for the ministers and the Democratic Progressive Party. Two years down the line Kamlepo words came to pass; the ‘Midnight Six’ came back to power; today, almost all of them are ministers or preside over some very important governmental office.

Kamlepo was not alone in ensuring emotions never overtook our judgement on the ‘Midnight Six’, as also weighing in on them was the Public Affairs Committee, PAC, a gathering of some religious heavyweights on the land. You have to measure the level of deterioration of relations between PAC and Government today to appreciate my argument here.

Government and PAC are now the best of enemies, but this same PAC had, like Kamlepo, come to the defence of these ‘Midnight Six’. At the time, it had issued a statement: “PAC believes that the right to a fair trial in the current arrests as outlined in Section 42 of the Republican Constitution should be respected . . .  It is the position of PAC that the due process of the law must be followed adequately, and any political manipulation should be avoided at all costs.”

In July, 2007, Nicholas Dausi dumped the opposition Malawi Congress Party where he had a senior position; he joined the then ruling Democratic Progressive Party. His argument for dumping the MCP was that the then President, late Bingu wa Mutharika, had demonstrated a heart of appreciation for Dr Hastings Kamuzu Banda, Malawi’s first head of state and a revered figure of the MCP. Dausi said he had decided to practise politics with the DPP because the party’s President Bingu wa Mutharika had accorded former President, late Hastings Kamuzu Banda, the respect due him by constructing him a mausoleum and by proposing a statue for him in the 2007/08 national budget.

“I will respect anyone who respects Kamuzu. He who builds a tombstone for your departed father is your relative,” Dausi was quoted as saying.

Interestingly only a year before, i.e. in 2006, Dausi was among voices which had ‘accused’ the late President Bingu wa Mutharika of targeting the opposition in his fight against corruption. This he had said only days after an event in Blantyre where the President was commemorating the third Anti-Corruption Day. And by then, the courts had already convicted John Chikakwiya, then former ruling United Democratic Front Governor for the South, and Yusuf Mwawa, former Minister of Education. Interestingly, today this same Chikakwiya is now a member of the same Democratic Progressive Party.

There is one problem with Malawi’s politics: you can never tell who belongs where because our leaders, for whatever reason, love to switch sides.

Now suppose the DPP had ‘finished’ Nicholas Dausi when Dausi was in the opposition where he was critical of DPP, who would be the Chief of this National Intelligence Bureau of theirs?

Critics do play the cushion so you should not find yourself without some defense or friends tomorrow. I think this we must teach these young people, who, because of some promise of money, can go to any length and torture their conscience to the grave in the name of ‘dealing with critics’.

Of course, no government, not even in the West where we are told democracy dwells, likes critics. By ‘critic’ I mean honest men and women who stand between a government in power and its people, men and women who use their education, experience and influence to point out faults so things are corrected for the greater benefit of the people. These critics come in various forms—mere political commentators, musicians, writers, journalists, name them. When you meet them, do not clobber them.

Critics are an essential component of an open government system. Because the machinery of power by a government in power is colossal and the ruling elites have the scales tipped in their favour on many things, critics have to play the balance to ensure those in power do not just do what they want with power. Such critics do this not by drawing attention to themselves, but by inviting attention to a policy issue to be corrected, in the course, suggesting realistic approaches to correcting the same.

I do not mean to say critics do not take a position as individuals; they do. Like anybody else, they belong to some political party, they take a stand on various issues as individuals, but they apply principles of objectivity to serve public interest. Good critics take position and are never swayed by monetary benefits or self-interest. I know a number of people who called themselves critics, but once they were invited into the tower of power turned out worse sycophants. In the first place, these were never critics; they were a class of people using the channel of critics to fill their bellies. Many who pose as critics do so just for greed, and do so from one side.

Although critics face threats elsewhere, they face a slightly different form of battle in Africa where the magnitude of threat and danger is greater; in Africa being a critic can be a licence to death or some hidden form of punishment.

Perhaps fighting critics would make sense in the West, but in Africa, owing to the nature of politics here, such a fight is self-inflicting. First, the dynamic nature of African politics makes it impossible to form permanent enmity. Remember that in Africa, almost in all countries where some opposition seems to be giving the ruling party some good time for their money, the said opposition was born from that same mother party. They only came to break up and break up further to form what we call the opposition following some fallout, a fallout that often doesn’t have anything to do with the people. In short, they all come from the same root, and this is the reason replacing a particular ruling party gives us a worse ruling party—they all come from the same womb and so follow the set pattern—imbedded in them is the DNA of greed, corruption, corruption and more corruption.

To wish for a landscape devoid of constructive criticism is like wishing for a democracy without the opposition or a democracy without a critical media; it ceases to be one. I think the only word of caution to such critics should be that we must criticize with a great measure of reality and understanding of the many factors that contribute to some status quo. I have heard some critics agitating for a change of government because the current regime is failing Malawians.

I do not defend this government; there are many areas in which they are not doing as well as they could, but I have to be realistic in my assessment. I know that in some cases our failure is down to our lack of strategic vision and our indecisiveness to taking bitter policy choices involving high sacrifices and discipline, but in others it’s down to our utter disregard of our roles as individual citizens in nation building. I’ve never in my life seen Malawians so reckless of their roles in nation building and self-sacrifice for their institutions.

Every time people bring in a language of change of government, I despair, for I’ve never seen any unconstitutional change of government bring in lasting peace. Where in the world was peace found after removing a government in power through an uprising? Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were nations that stood as examples of ticking economies in Africa. Once the people rose up, giving us news to write, and the governments fell, all the progress went down the drain. Today Egypt is being bailed out. My goodness, Egypt? That centre of ancient civilization?

Any country that wallows itself in internal conflicts risks sustaining a permanent wound within itself. I always say that destroying takes seconds, rebuilding ages. Be careful what you wish for your country.

Now, son, when making pronouncements on dealing with critics, first remind yourself we have never been enemies before, and the reason is that, in our politics, we are never permanent enemies. These same critics stand to benefit you tomorrow when things change, for like it or not, things do change, son.

And you good critic, do your job unperturbed, for this service is for them too. We have a nation so beautiful; we can collectively work to make it tick again. To do that we need you, critics, as much as we need them, men and women in power.