By Kelvin Sulungwe
To be honest with you, I am hoping for fresh elections because like I explained before, means business to my firm and most media organisations such as Zodiak, Times and Mibawa. Even MBC will cash out greatly, not to forget screen printers, musicians, transporters, venues etc.
We will all cash out. Well, business plans aside, we have a problem or rather an issue that most of us have ignored in this case.
But in the end, it is still the judges to determine.
Having followed the electoral case from the beginning, I have managed to summarise it for you in very simple terms.
Understand that am not a lawyer and do not understand any legal jargon, but as a trained journalist, with a very handsome mind, I took time to break down the legal opinion analyzed by most legal experts.
2019 Presidential Case is simply an issue of QUANTITATIVE and QUALITATIVE.
Firstly, let us understand what these two words mean.
Quantitative: (Adjective) relating to, measuring, or measured by the quantity of something rather than its quality.
Qualitative (Adjective) relating to, measuring, or measured by the quality of something rather than its quantity.
All thanks to Oxford Dictionary for the above definitions.
In the just ended case, the petitioners (opposition) focussed on quality while the defendants (Malawi Electoral Commission-MEC and Democratic Progressive Party -DPP) focused on quantity.
Do not undermine the conflicts between the two strategies. Its much bigger than we can expect.
Ladies and gentlemen, without undermining the power of quality, am afraid to go with it, because quantity is at play.
In the current electoral set up, the candidate with the majority voters wins not the candidate with quality voters.
The system looks at who got more votes and not which candidate was voted by the most handsome or well dressed people. Issue of quality and quantity.
It is true, in terms of quality, the voting system had numerous irregularities. From Tippex to missing signatures etc. That is what the petitioners contested, but unfortunately, they overlooked two important issues which are:
1. Not enough monitors have testified to show that APM votes were inflated.
This where we are saying in an election which had thousands of monitors, only few of them, not more than 10% (based on witnesses who testified in the courts) have come out to challenge the results. Tricky.
2. The challenged votes were also signed for by petitioners. A number of streams which the petitioners used to challenge the quality of the electoral process had result sheets signed by their own monitors, approving them to be the correct figures.
That is where it gets interesting and I do not want to celebrate, not just yet because quality rarely beats quantity. Ask the Americans and the Chinese.
I just wanted you to put that into consideration before you start hosting dinners thinking you have already won the case. I hear ena ake ayamba kale ma phwandotu.
We wait for the courts if they are to go with quality or quantity.
This is for you and me who cannot understand those long and bombasticated analysis by the trained lawyers.
…………….Views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of the Publisher or the Editor of Maravi Post.