BLANTYRE-(MaraviPost)-Malawi’s political cycle is predictable enough to be mapped with a calendar. When a party is in opposition, it gets abandoned. When it returns to power, the same faces reappear at the gate asking to be let back in.
The latest case is Ken Msonda, whose ongoing disciplinary trouble with the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) has reignited speculation that he is angling for a return to the Democratic Progressive Party.
The pattern is familiar. Msonda was once a vocal DPP member. During the party’s time in opposition between 2020 and 2025, he was among those who publicly castigated former President Peter Mutharika.
He used rallies and media interviews to attack the DPP leadership, painting the party as directionless and its president as out of touch. For many within DPP, those remarks crossed the line from criticism into personal vilification.
When the Malawi Congress Party formed government after the 2020 elections, Msonda made his move.
He joined MCP and was rewarded with the position of deputy publicity secretary. In the logic of opportunistic politics, that made sense: the ruling party needed voices, and he needed relevance.
For two years, he defended MCP policy and attacked the opposition, including his former party.
Now, with DPP back in government following the 2025 elections, the script is flipping again.
Msonda is facing a disciplinary hearing within MCP over remarks made in a recent interview, which the party has described as inappropriate and disrespectful.
Whether he is found guilty or not, the timing has raised eyebrows. Political analyst Mathews Namukhoyo argues that this is not accidental, but deliberate strategy.
According to Namukhoyo, Msonda’s trajectory reveals a politician who thrives on movement rather than conviction.
“He wants to be fired so that he can start praising Peter Mutharika again and rejoin DPP with the narrative that he was victimized for speaking the truth,” Namukhoyo said.
In his view, this is calculated theatrics designed to rehabilitate an image that was tarnished by years of attacking the very party he now wishes to return to.
Namukhoyo’s warning goes beyond Msonda. He is calling on DPP to reject all former members who abandoned the party during its wilderness years and now seek re-entry because the political wind has changed. “The party worked harder without them,” he said. “These are the people who wanted to destroy DPP and castigated Peter Mutharika in all sorts. They should stay away.”
The argument carries weight because it speaks to a deeper problem in Malawian politics: the absence of ideological anchoring.
Parties become vehicles for personal survival rather than platforms for policy. When DPP was in opposition, it relied on a core of members who endured ridicule, court cases, and political isolation to keep the structure alive.
They organized at grassroots level, mobilized resources, and absorbed the cost of being associated with a party that had lost power.
Now that the party is back in government, those who left at the first sign of trouble want to reclaim positions and influence.
This is why Namukhoyo’s label of “recycle politician” resonates.
A recycle politician is not defined by ideology, policy proposals, or constituency work. They are defined by timing. They appear when there is something to gain, and disappear when there is something to lose. Their loyalty is transactional, and their public statements shift with the political weather.
For voters and party loyalists who stayed through the lean years, this creates a sense of betrayal.
The DPP leadership faces a choice. Accepting returning defectors might look like a strategy for unity and broadening the base.
But it also risks demoralizing the cadres who held the party together when it was unpopular.
It sends a message that loyalty is expendable, and that the quickest route to rehabilitation is a loud attack followed by a convenient apology when circumstances change.
History offers lessons. Parties that institutionalize recycling tend to become unstable. New members who join for power often leave for power when the tide turns again.
The culture of opportunism becomes self-reinforcing, making it harder to build long-term structures and discipline.
In contrast, parties that reward consistency, even when it is inconvenient, tend to develop stronger internal cohesion.
Msonda’s case is not isolated. Several other former DPP officials who left for MCP, UDF, or independent platforms during the opposition period are reportedly exploring a return.
Some have been quiet about their intentions, testing the waters through proxies and media interviews.
The common thread is that their departure coincided with DPP’s fall from government, and their interest in returning has coincided with its return.
Namukhoyo’s position is clear: DPP does not need them. The party’s comeback was built without their input, often against their public criticism.
To bring them back now would be to reward the behavior that weakens political accountability.
It would tell the electorate that principles are negotiable and that the only qualification for a senior role is the ability to switch sides at the right moment.
There is also the question of credibility with the public. Voters remember who stood where during the hard years.
A party that welcomes back its most vocal critics without consequence risks appearing desperate and directionless. It undermines the narrative of renewal that helped DPP regain power.
For a government that needs to show it is different from the cycle of recycling and patronage, the optics matter.
The disciplinary hearing facing Msonda in MCP may resolve his immediate political problem. But the larger issue for DPP is whether it will set a precedent.
If the party opens the door to those who left during its lowest point, it will have to explain to its base why loyalty no longer matters. If it keeps the door closed, it will face accusations of being vindictive and exclusionary. Either way, the decision will define how the party manages its internal politics in government.
Political parties are not private clubs, and Malawi’s democracy benefits from fluid movement. But there is a difference between fluidity and opportunism. Fluidity allows for genuine ideological realignment.
Opportunism allows for self-serving repositioning. The distinction matters because it affects how citizens view politics itself. When recycling becomes the norm, public trust in parties erodes, and cynicism takes root.
For now, Msonda’s future remains uncertain. But the debate his case has triggered is necessary. Malawi’s democracy will mature faster if parties are willing to say no to recycling, and if analysts like Namukhoyo continue to call it out.
The DPP’s strength coming out of opposition was its ability to survive without the people who now want back in. That fact should not be forgotten simply because the party is back in power.
The gate may be open for new members. But for those who left, attacked, and now wish to return, the answer should be simple: you had your chance.
Feedback:+265992082424
Email: jonesgadama@gmail.com
Leave a Reply