By Burnett Munthali
Malawi’s political landscape has never lacked commentators eager to pronounce the death of major political parties. Yet few have done so with the kind of theatrical flourish and speculative bravado recently displayed by Z Allan Ntata in his piece titled “The Fall of a Puppet Presidency: DPP’s Crisis Moment.” While cloaked in poetic lines and dramatic flair, Ntata’s assertions are not only misleading but dangerously simplistic.
Let’s be clear from the onset: a political party’s internal discussions, leadership reflections, or strategic recalibrations do not signify crisis—they reflect democracy in motion. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is not collapsing; it is recalibrating, as any serious party would do in preparation for an election as crucial as 2025.
Leadership reflection is not collapse
Ntata boldly claims that Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika (APM) is “no longer a viable candidate,” citing whispers and alleged intel. Yet viability in politics is measured by structured engagements with grassroots supporters, policy propositions, and institutional readiness—not by anonymous murmurs passed off as intelligence.
If APM is indeed considering stepping aside for a younger, vibrant, or “cleaner face,” then that speaks to his maturity and strategic thinking—not weakness. It is the very essence of statesmanship to recognize when to lead and when to hand over the baton. Leadership reflection is not the fall of a party; it is evidence of its evolution.
The fallacy of the “Puppet” label
To reduce APM’s leadership to a “puppet presidency” is not only an insult to his legacy but also an affront to the millions of Malawians who voted for him—not once, but twice. Under his administration, Malawi saw infrastructural growth, improved access to tertiary education, and relative macroeconomic stability despite global financial challenges.
The so-called “Puppet Campaign” that Ntata refers to failed not because people rejected APM but because the electoral landscape was manipulated under questionable judicial decisions and political alliances formed in desperation, not principle.
Internal debate is healthy, not a sign of doom
Every political party undergoes internal debates about its direction and leadership, especially ahead of a pivotal election. Is there discussion within DPP about the future? Yes. Does that mean there is panic? No.
It would be intellectually dishonest to claim that disagreements or debates equate to collapse. On the contrary, they prove the DPP is a living political organism—not a dictatorship with one fixed voice. That Ntata sees “doubt at every level of the party” may be a reflection of his personal disconnection from party structures than of any systemic implosion.
DPP’s strategic strength remains unshaken
Let us not forget that the DPP remains one of the most structured and resourceful parties in Malawi. Its grassroots network remains intact, its regional loyalties are solid, and its legacy of development still resonates with many Malawians who are increasingly disillusioned with the Tonse Alliance’s empty promises and economic mismanagement.
It is not DPP that needs to worry; it is the ruling establishment that has failed to translate slogans into solutions, that has watched the cost of living spiral, and that has consistently evaded accountability.
Personal attacks do not replace political analysis
Ntata’s characterization of APM as “too old,” “too dependent on Chisale,” or “too exposed” reads more like a personal vendetta than a political analysis. If age were the primary disqualifier, then many globally respected leaders—some older than APM—would not have made historic contributions in their final terms.
And if the issue is dependency on trusted aides, then this critique should apply universally. Every president surrounds themselves with trusted advisors. Singling out Chisale as the puppet master is a tired narrative with little substance and plenty of political mischief.
APM and DPP have nothing to prove—Malawians already know
Ultimately, it is the Malawian people who will decide whether DPP and APM—or whoever emerges as the candidate—deserve another mandate. Ntata and others like him should stop assuming the role of political prophets and allow Malawians to judge based on records, vision, and action.
What Malawi needs is not poetic pessimism disguised as insight. It needs real debate, grounded in facts and driven by a genuine desire for development. DPP remains a key player in that conversation. The party is not falling—it is watching, listening, and preparing.
As for Allan Ntata, perhaps the real question is not about APM’s viability, but about his own credibility. If he truly believes in a better Malawi, he would be better served critiquing policies, not personalities, and building narratives, not tearing them down.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are those of the author not necessarily of The Maravi Post or Editor
