LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-Public opinion remains sharply divided on whether former President Peter Mutharika (APM) and incumbent President Lazarus Chakwera should take part in a second chance presidential debate.
Some argue that debates are not beauty contests but rather tests of vision, honesty, and readiness to lead.
One commentator noted that a previous candidate once spoke of removing presidential immunity but failed to explain what Malawians would do if the effort did not succeed.
The same commentator warned that policies must be guided by sanity and guarded by patriotism.
Others dismissed the idea outright, saying the debate would be meaningless.
Patrick Chimombo was quick to write that such debates in Malawi are “zopanda pake.”
Several contributors insisted that APM is the people’s favorite and does not need a debate to prove himself.
In contrast, Charles Chimombo countered by saying not everyone supports that view.
Some people argued that the real issue is whether the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) can agree to give the presidential debate a genuine chance.
Observers added that previous debates featured mere contestants rather than real contenders.
They stressed that debates should be between two strong sides, otherwise they turn into panel discussions.
Many Malawians believe that a debate would only be viable if it involved APM and Chakwera directly.
APM himself has stated clearly that he has no time for what he calls “mumble-jumble games.”
Critics pointed out that even if Mutharika wished to participate, it would be a challenge.
They cited his advanced age, difficulties with hearing, need for comfort, and security concerns.
One observer noted that he would require assistance to reach the podium.
They added that his security requirements could match CIA standards.
They also said debates would have to be scheduled during daylight hours.
This was because he would need to rest at night.
For Chakwera, doubts also remain.
His unfulfilled campaign promises from 2020 would come back to haunt him.
Furthermore, his new 2025 manifesto would place him under pressure to explain how he intends to achieve what he has failed to deliver in the past.
Some Malawians concluded that both leaders should simply be left alone since they have little to offer in a debate.
Others mocked the idea by suggesting that instead of debating, the two should engage in a physical fight.
Several citizens believe both men are incapable of articulating their manifestos on stage.
APM’s supporters have vowed to vote for him with or without a debate.
Others rejected the entire concept, labeling it a “debate ya ma street kids.”
Critics accused debate organizers of favoritism but added that citizens cannot be stopped from making their own political choices.
DPP supporters insisted that the debate is irrelevant to them.
They declared that their real showdown will be on September 16 during the general election.
Some rejected the idea as compulsory, saying Mutharika has already proven himself as president and has no obligation to join such events.
They argued that Malawians already know his record.
For them, debates serve no purpose.
On the other hand, Chakwera was accused of avoiding the debate out of fear of being exposed.
Some UTM supporters chimed in, insisting that Dr. Dalitso Kabambe would outshine both Mutharika and Chakwera, particularly on issues of economics and development.
They urged Malawians to be wise in the 2025 elections and consider Kabambe as a credible alternative.
Skeptics, however, maintained that debates in Malawi are useless traditions.
They doubted whether such an event would happen, saying neither Mutharika nor Chakwera is willing to face exposure.
Nation Publications even came under criticism for its choice of photos of Peter Mutharika.
Some questioned the media’s intentions in publishing such images.
Analysis
The public response to the idea of a second chance presidential debate between Mutharika and Chakwera reveals deep divisions in Malawi’s political landscape.
Supporters of both camps see little value in debates, either because they believe their candidate has nothing to prove or because they fear exposure of weaknesses.
On the other hand, critics argue that debates are essential platforms for accountability and for testing leaders’ vision and competence.
Ultimately, the reluctance of both major candidates to participate raises questions about the strength of Malawi’s democratic culture.
If debates continue to be dismissed as irrelevant, citizens may be denied a vital opportunity to scrutinize those seeking the highest office.
What is clear is that Malawians crave leadership that combines honesty, delivery, and courage.
These qualities cannot be hidden behind avoidance or excuses.