Q & A: ‘Integrity should not suffer at expense of emotions’
by FRANCIS TAYANJA-PHIRI - Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 13:08:04

The conduct of opposition members of parliament on Section 65 of the constitution as a priority over the national budget is of serious concern to the private sector which is the engine rooom for economic growth. Our Mzuzu Bureau Chief Francis Tayanja Phiri spoke with Harrison Kaluwa, presdient of the MCCI excerpts

AS president of the MCCCI, what do you make of the developments following the ruling on Sec 65? Do you think this could have an effect on our nation’s economy?

If we are to live by history and see what is happening in Parliament, by the MCCCI point of view – I think this is the first time we are seeing Malawi enjoying democracy. The government has been tolerant to a lot of things. That is what democracy is all about.
But if you also look in terms of management of the economy in this country, one does not need to have a degree in any discipline to understand this, you just need simple things which we can see as a trend – we are not saying things are perfect, but we can see a trend of improvements from 2004.
To crown it all, if you look at the budget that was presented on June 28, we at the Chamber describe it as one of the best budgets we have ever seen on this land. A budget that is really pro-poor–you know, as businesses, if the purchasing power for the people is low, there is no way you can do business. Who is going to purchase your products?
Here is a budget which looks at issues holistically, all constituencies affected–in rural areas if you look at the subsidy programme, you will definitely understand that it has yielded food security at household levels. People have food, yes, I will be honest with you, during the MCP regime it used to be said that the country was self-sufficient in food, but that was at national level–this time around it has been attained at the household level as well.

How? Are you trying to say the people at the grassroot level were not benefiting anything from the sales of their crops?
In those days people were producing but almost everything was being bought by Admarc or rather all proceeds grabbed by Admarc because of farm in-put loans they got through farm clubs. Those who failed to pay through sale of produce had their properties grabbed. But now we are talking of a situation where there is food security at household level, this releases the pressure since the food is there; people are able to buy other things they need.
Economic activities are taking place in the village–now, that coupled with the increase of honorarium for chiefs and village heads, we can see the difference.
But some quarters have expressed reservations on the increase of chiefs’ perks describing it as a political gimmick by the DPP-led government? What is your view?

I don’t see how it is wrong to increase the perks of the chiefs because these are really government agents at the grassroots level, initiating development almost on a voluntary basis. To me, unless somebody is sick, this is a move, and important one, and government must be hailed for increasing chiefs’ perks.
Apart from honouring them for the great work they do in villages, as government agents, the K500 to village heads is a just starting point and I am sure government can even increase it–this also increases the buying power at the village level hence good business can take place in those areas. If you also look at the Civil Service in Malawi, you will note that for some time it has been underpaid–of course, I am not saying it is enough, but at least you can see a change and flicker of hope from the current increase in the present budget. When you look at the allocation for the increase in the present budget, you can see something is happening that would increase the levels of income and hence increasing the levels of disposable income because people are able to buy more.
Look at the private sector initiatives that are there in the budget! As a business sector we would like to commend government for all this. And, it takes me back to your first question, let me say, a true Malawian, committed to his country, would not prioritise Section 65 over this excellent budget.

But don’t you think it is also equally important to tackle this Section 65 because of the constitutional implications it creates?
I repeat, a true Malawian would not priortise Section 65 as an issue. And after all if you really look at Section 65, I don’t think there is an issue as far as we are concerned. Since the start of this multiparty dispensation Section 65 has be en misinterpreted many times, so the fact that we look at it every time means something is wrong with it, hence cannot this time around be treated as a priority. It is just wrong for people to concentrate on Section 65.

But should we really blame Parliament for not discussing that?
You should see what is happening in Parliament, the words that are being spoken by politicians, I have come to conclude that it’s not just intelligence that you need as a human being, but wisdom. When you examine the whole discussion that is taking place in the House you note that people may be intelligent, but they are missing wisdom. That is why when God asked Solomon what he needed, he asked for wisdom and not riches or anything else. He knew wisdom is key to everything, wisdom is key to development–if these people in Parliament had the heart of Malawians and their constituents, I don’t think they would be concentrating on such things as Section 65 as a priority.

Do you mean to say they should just concentrate on the budget, rubber-stamping it?
What I am saying is that it is a must they should concentrate on first passing the budget. Analyse it thoroughly, critique it, amend it where necessary or advise and in the end pass it. This is a national budget and it equally affects us the private sector. For instance, if the budget is talking of construction of roads, is it not the business sector that would do that? If you look at drugs, is it not companies that are to supply those drugs? If people want to frustrate government by blocking the budget in the guise of the Section 65, then they are making a big blunder. People (masses) would not just watch, let the MPs amicably look at this and discuss properly.

What do you think is the way forward?
We ask the parliamentarians to revisit their stand and priority areas. Let them take up the budget issue as a priority and I hope they have reflected on that. As a private sector we pray and plead that they don’t make their integrity suffer at the expense of political emotions.

<< back