By Burnett Munthali
The Malawi Congress Party (MCP), once the dominant force in Malawian politics during the one-party era under Hastings Kamuzu Banda, seems to be grappling with a troubling legacy: its reliance on intimidation, political suppression, and authoritarian tactics. Despite positioning itself as a beacon of democracy in recent years, the MCP’s political playbook still carries over elements of its past, a strategy that threatens to undermine the country’s democratic progress.
In the early days of Malawian independence, the MCP, led by Hastings Kamuzu Banda, ruled with an iron fist. During its one-party rule, dissent was ruthlessly crushed, opposition parties were outlawed, and civil liberties were tightly controlled. The party wielded its authority without challenge, relying on a system of fear and coercion to maintain control. Though the dawn of multi-party democracy in 1994 marked the end of MCP’s political monopoly, many Malawians hoped that the party would reform its ways and embrace the new democratic order.
However, there are growing concerns that MCP is still clinging to these old tactics of political dominance and intimidation. The recent surge of political harassment, suppression of opposing voices, and lack of tolerance for criticism reflect the party’s historical roots in autocratic governance. While it operates in a multi-party system today, its approach to dealing with political opponents and critical journalists often mirrors its past.
A glaring example of the MCP’s old habits resurfacing is the recent harassment of journalists Cathy Maulidi and Brian Banda, who faced threats and intimidation for their reporting on sensitive political issues. This incident shows how the party, or its loyalists, may still resort to suppressing any voice that challenges or criticizes its actions. By sharing journalists’ personal information in party-aligned WhatsApp groups, the aim seems to be silencing the free press—a vital pillar of democracy.
Beyond the media, political opponents also find themselves at the mercy of the MCP’s intimidation tactics. Opposition politicians who speak out against the party’s policies or leadership are often subjected to vilification, smear campaigns, and threats. Such practices harken back to the days when the MCP’s Political Police and Youth League members would crack down on anyone perceived to be a threat to the ruling regime.
Another old MCP tactic that still lingers is the tendency to prioritize party loyalty over competence in key government positions. While the party has made efforts to present itself as inclusive and focused on national development, there are ongoing allegations that many high-ranking government officials owe their positions to their allegiance to the MCP rather than their qualifications. This kind of political patronage is reminiscent of the Banda era when loyalty to the party and the president was often rewarded, regardless of the individual’s capabilities.
Malawi’s democracy is built on the principle of open debate, where opposition voices play a crucial role in ensuring accountability and transparency. However, in recent times, there have been growing concerns that the MCP is working to stifle any form of dissent. Activists, opposition figures, and civil society leaders who speak out against the party are sometimes painted as enemies of progress or accused of undermining the government’s authority. This intolerance of opposing views mirrors the party’s historical reliance on suppressing dissent to maintain control.
In modern democratic Malawi, this approach is not only outdated but dangerous. The democratic space must remain open for all voices to be heard, not just those aligned with the ruling party. The MCP’s inability to fully let go of its past methods jeopardizes Malawi’s democratic progress and could discourage citizen participation in the political process.
While the MCP has made some strides in embracing democratic ideals, it is clear that the party still has some way to go in shedding its authoritarian past. The party must evolve beyond its reliance on intimidation and political suppression and fully commit to the democratic principles it once fought against during its one-party rule. If it is to remain a key player in modern Malawi, the MCP must embrace a more inclusive and tolerant approach to politics.
Reform within the MCP is not only necessary but essential for the party to remain relevant in a rapidly changing political landscape. The citizens of Malawi expect more from their political leaders, particularly from a party with such a significant historical role. Transparency, accountability, and a willingness to engage in open dialogue are the cornerstones of a healthy democracy—values that the MCP must actively promote and uphold.
Conclusion
The MCP’s continued reliance on old political tactics of intimidation, suppression of dissent, and patronage reflects a lingering attachment to its past. As Malawi continues its democratic journey, it is essential for the MCP to evolve, reform, and align itself with the principles of a modern democracy. The days of ruling through fear and intimidation are long gone, and if the MCP is to remain a legitimate force in the country’s political landscape, it must embrace the values of openness, tolerance, and transparency. Only by doing so can the party truly break free from the shadow of its authoritarian past.
