Dickson Kashoti’s latest opinion piece is not analysis but conjecture dressed up as authority. It is speculative, internally inconsistent, ethically careless and politically shallow. Blow by blow, his argument collapses under the weight of its own contradictions and weak logic.
He begins by asserting with unwarranted certainty that Dr Lazarus Chakwera’s political journey ends in 2029 and that any attempt to stand again would amount to “raping” the MCP constitution. This framing is both inflammatory and misleading. Party constitutions are not sacred tablets carved in stone; they are political instruments that can be amended by delegates through established democratic processes. To suggest that any amendment equals constitutional violation is either a misunderstanding of how political parties function or a deliberate attempt to poison the debate. Worse still, Kashoti indicts Chakwera for a hypothetical act that has not occurred and may never occur. Whether Chakwera contests again or not is neither here nor there at this stage. That decision belongs to MCP delegates at a future convention, not to a columnist’s imagination.
Kashoti further contradicts himself by acknowledging that MCP will hold a convention to elect new office bearers while simultaneously presenting the constitution as rigid and unchangeable. If delegates are sovereign enough to elect leaders, they are equally sovereign to amend their own rules. To label such a process as “rape” is not only unethical but diminishes the seriousness of constitutional discourse. It turns political commentary into sensationalism and unfairly attacks a former President’s integrity.
Equally troubling is the timing of Kashoti’s intervention. MCP has just lost power. Any serious political analysis at this point should focus on postmortem: what went wrong, what policies failed, what leadership mistakes were made, and why voters withdrew their trust. Instead, Kashoti rushes into succession politics, as if naming potential candidates explains electoral defeat. Parties do not lose elections because of who might lead them in five years; they lose because of present governance failures. This rush to coronation debates is intellectually lazy and strategically misplaced.
His assessment of potential MCP leaders further exposes the shallowness of his argument. What he presents as evaluation is, in truth, a mixture of personal insults, hearsay and unsupported judgments. Reducing Alex Major to a barking dog is not analysis. Dismissing MacBride Nkhalamba as “unknown” ignores the fact that many leaders emerge from outside loud political circles. Labeling Vitumbiko Mumba as arrogant evidence turns leadership critique into gossip. Casting doubt on Catherine Gotani Hara’s chances solely on regional prejudice reproduces the same tribal thinking that has already harmed MCP electorally.
Nowhere is Kashoti’s inconsistency clearer than in his treatment of Richard Chimwendo Banda. He claims Chimwendo has all the qualities required to lead MCP, yet admits he is unpopular within the party’s rank and file. Leadership in a mass party cannot be detached from grassroots legitimacy. One cannot be both ideal and unelectable. More importantly, Kashoti conveniently ignores Chimwendo’s central role in the political culture that contributed to MCP’s defeat. As one of the most powerful ministers in Chakwera’s administration, Chimwendo championed a regional mobilisation strategy rooted largely in the Central Region. The belief that massive registration and rallies in the Centre alone could deliver national victory was politically naïve and electorally disastrous. Malawi cannot be won on regional arithmetic, and any leader with weak appeal in the North and South is a liability in today’s politics.
By focusing narrowly on personalities, Kashoti avoids the harder but more necessary questions. Was there poor leadership, and if so, was it confined to Chakwera alone? Did economic mismanagement and policy incoherence under the SOSISA banner fail ordinary Malawians? Did internal gatekeeping and the undue influence of unelected insiders, including family-linked power centres, sideline competent, street-smart intellectuals and technocrats who could have shaped pro-poor policies? Did arrogance and insularity disconnect the presidency from realities on the ground? These are the issues that deserve serious reflection, not speculative lists of successors.
Ultimately, Kashoti’s piece replaces democratic process with pundit arrogance. MCP does not belong to columnists or commentators. It belongs to its delegates. They will decide, in their own time and wisdom, whether the constitution needs amendment, whether Chakwera remains relevant, and who can rebuild national trust and unite the country across regions. Until then, succession gambling is a distraction. What MCP needs now is honest postmortem, accountability and a clear roadmap for renewal. Anything else is noise.
