By Lyson Sibande
Let me add something to the debate that I have ignited about the DPP regionalistic approach towards the management of a convention against the MCP approach where every party position is open and free for everyone regardless of their geographic settlement.
Now, I criticized the regional discriminatory approach on the basis of its oppression against aspirations and freedom of individual members to pursue political careers of choice and go for positions that best serve their personal passions and skills. I am against reminding members about where they come to qualify for certain positions. However, I agree that eventually, DPP would have regular distribution of position in the NGC where all regions will have fair representation.
However, I support the MCP approach of noninterference with personal aspirations and passions which allows everyone to freely compete for any position regardless of where they come from, and let the best candidate win. I support this system because it respects and safeguards personal freedoms and promotes personal growth and competitiveness. But of course, eventually, it can lead to irregular distribution of positions in the NGC and party hierarchy. As we have seen, during convention most top positions in MCP were won by contestants from the Central Region.
But what is wrong with a free, non-discriminatory approach where delegates from all regions come together to freely vote for office bearers that have freely chosen their desired positions at a convention without any form of compulsion, and delegates freely elect more than 80% of office bearers from one region? What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong as long as they were freely and fairly elected through a legitimate democratic process which respected wishes of the delegates.
I am a realist, so I will tell how the world works not how you wish it should work.
History and modern social systems have proved that every political and economic system that respects personal freedoms and promotes personal aspirations and pursuit of personal fulfillment, locates power and wealth only in those with the capability to get it without any regards to equality of the distribution pattern.
Let me give you the examples of democracy and capitalism or free market economy. These are systems that have thrived and stood the test of time. All these systems have non-interference, freedom of personal choice and competitiveness as their commonly shared fundamental principles.
These systems don’t really feel sorry for the weak and are not about equality in distribution. The one who has advantageous factors and works hard and smart gets the bigger share of opportunities without having to apologize for it. Its survival of the fittest: if you must win, then you must be fit.
There is a reason why in Malawi Presidents only come from the Central and Southern Regions. The presidency does not circulate in regions to balance up the distribution of occupants of State House.
Democracy allows people to compete freely and fairly, and it does no matter if only Chewas, Lhomwes and Yaos will be presidents. If they have the numbers, and can vote in majority then they will produce presidents. Anywhere in the world, whether in Europe or America, political democracy works like that and it remains efficient, competitive and it thrives.
And yes, there are also reasons why in every country there are few billionaires at the top but many poor people at the bottom. The distribution of wealth has skewed patterns to certain few. That’s what capitalism and free market economy does. It selects only the best and hard workers and rewards them. There is noninterference, personal choices are respected, innovation thrives and the invisible hand of supply and demand call the shots. Only those that deserve to be rich get rich. It does not seek equal distribution between the rich and poor.
My conclusion is that I support the MCP approach because an approach that safeguards personal aspirations and individual choices and does not restrict people’s dreams based on race, color, gender, religion or geographical area but can concentrate power in one region is more democratic, competitive and efficient than the approach that attempts to create equal distribution of position through discrimination and violation of people’s freedoms and personal choices.
