THE IMMORTALITY OF MY MAY 2014
VOTE
An immortal vote is one that is identical with the voter’s true will.
The human will is eternal. Ella Wheeler Wilcox concisely captures this philosophical
truth in her aesthetically appealing poetical rendition, The Eternal Will, as
follows: “Back of thy parents and grandparents lies the great eternal will.
That, too, is thine Inheritance; strong, beautiful, divine, sure lever of
success for one who tries.” Further, a human being, as will, loses its essence
if devoid of its reasoning faculty. Given these premises, it should not be
difficult to see how a vote cast without employment of full ratiocination
cannot be identical with the voter’s will. For the same reason, a vote cast
only through employment of the complete natural light of reason must
unavoidably be identical with the voter’s will. If, therefore, the will be
eternal, such a vote must necessarily be eternal too.
Now, the right of a citizen to vote is a power with force beyond doable
imagination. A person’s vote has potential power to affect, negatively or
positively, the voter himself, his contemporaries and the totality of posterity
in ways that elude all comprehension. Such power being an individual’s right,
therefore, the vote is one rare instance where a person’s will has an unusual
opportunity to apply itself in an extraordinarily significant way. How one
exercises this rare power, prudently and effectively or foolishly and
wastefully, depends on their personal convictions and philosophy. Some, out of
ignorance, pure folly or emotional impulse, will exercise it recklessly or
indifferently, praying hard in the process that God, or the forces that be,
favour the person they vote for with victory. When victory proliferates, they
naturally rejoice. When defeat attends their voted candidate, however, great agony
and regret abounds in their disposition. Others, on the other hand, conscious
of the magnanimous value inherent in their vote, will meticulously exercise the
right through relentless employment of the power of reason, and unwavering
dodging of ignorance, folly and emotional impulse. The latter individuals are aware
of the fact that, as absolute wills, they are a force of nature driven by
unavoidable necessity to apply themselves fully. Upon ratiocinating fully, as
to how they should vote and why, they proceed to cast a reasoned vote that reflects
the essence of their will. Consequently, their core satisfaction only lies in
how, as a necessary force of nature, they applied themselves fully to cast a
reasoned vote, and not in the victory or defeat of their preferred candidate. In
other words, it matters less to a reasoned voter whether the person they vote
for wins or not.
Having stumbled upon the foregoing truths, it became peremptory upon
my conscience not to cast an emotional vote this year; a vote void of the
essence and substance of my will; a weak vote that has no sagacity and strength
to stand on its own against faulty popular opinions. I will instead cast a vote
that replicates the essence of me as a unique fully-fledged will. Man, an
advanced will hardwired with an impressive reasoning faculty, can hardly
accomplish anything perfectly without invoking his reasoning knack. My ultimate
satisfaction shall accordingly lie purely in the indubitable fact that the “I”
in me applied itself fully to the best of its ability by freely exercising a
choice grounded in the natural light of reason; for it is only to such a degree
that the gamut of my powers, as a reasoning individual, extends. Victory or
defeat on the part of the one I vote for will have no effect whatsoever on my
disposition or state of mind; for forces beyond my powers determine them,
forces so mysterious and awe-inspiring that many have no choice but to term
God. It should plainly be self-evident, however, that the “I” in me will
equally share the prize of immortality and superiority with the forces that be,
both having applied themselves fully within ranges of their powers. It is in
this sweet truth alone that my satisfaction and totality of glee lie if I cast
a reasoned vote.
Now, who, amongst this year’s front-line contenders, qualifies for my
vote? The “I” in me, first, says there is only one test for pointing at who
qualifies: true statesmanship. To trace the greater lineaments of a statesman’s
character as it ought to exist, or must exist, in a state of society so
complicated as that of Malawi – to mark out the ends at which a statesman must
aim, and means whereby he must seek to accomplish them if he would earn for
himself any substantive name or lasting esteem – to show how the powers of
government may be most effectively employed to develop all the good tendencies
of our age, and to subdue or mitigate its many corruptions – this, I say, would
have been a task worthy of the highest intellect that I can afford but only in
an extensive rendition in form of a book. In the present discourse, I shall
only be contented with the definition of a true statesman in its purest form,
which, despite its precision and truth, unfortunately may be misunderstood and
sound disagreeable to many solely based on its extreme succinctness.
In my calculations, a true statesman is one who rules and governs
according to a scientific principle for the best interest of the people he
governs, whether according to law or against the law; and whether according to
their will or against their will – as long as the end result of his rule serves
the best interest of the people he governs. This definition may sound a bit
abhorrent to religious adherents of tenets of rule of law and democracy. But an
enlightened mind will at once detect the futility inherent in concepts of law
and democracy. The law, no matter how carefully crafted, does not comprehend
what is noblest and most just for all and therefore cannot always enforce what
is best. The differences of human things do not admit of any universal and
simple rule. No art whatsoever can lay down a rule that will last for all time.
It is to this extent that there are times when the rule of law finds itself in
circumstances where it negates the best interest of the people. A true
statesman will, in such circumstances, aim at the best interest of the people
and not the rule of law. The same misfortune is true with democracy, a context
where worshipping the will of the people almost like a god is business of the
day. The futility at the heart of democracy is apparent in the fact that,
generally, the people are allowed to whine as they wish and to retract their
will against their leader, on the basis of the leader’s actions or way of
governing, even when the leader’s said actions or way of governing, despite
causing a bit of temporary pain, are ultimately in or aimed at the best
interest of the very people. A true statesman will, in such circumstances, aim
at the best interest of the people and not their will. In that regard, a true
statesman is like a physician: whether he cures us against our will or with our
will, and whatever be his mode of treatment – incision, burning, or infliction
of some other pain, - whether he practices out of a book, whether he purges or
reduces in some other way, or even fattens his patients, is a physician all the
same, so long as he exercises authority over the patients according to rules of
art, if he only does them good and heals and saves them. Governing according to
a scientific principle connotes command of comprehensive knowledge and
philosophy of what amounts to best interest of the people and how the same can
be achieved. Finally, governing with the sole aim of achieving the best
interest of the people divests a true statesman of all self-interest. The
presence or absence of self-interest and ignorance, as such, have always
distinguished true statesmen from tyrants, or similar evils, amongst
politicians.
So, how do this year’s leading edge presidential candidates (Mrs.
Joyce Banda, Mr. Atupele Muluzi, Dr. Lazarus Chakwera and Professor Arthur
Peter Mutharika) excel if tested through the criteria for my vote?
In my opinion, Mrs. Joyce Banda (JB) is no true statesman. JB is not
difficult to analyse because I have seen her serve as State President for two
years now. Apart from the usual and unhelpful average-politician’s promises,
there is no insignia that a scientific principle backs her leadership. In this
regard, I cannot agree more with Z Allan Ntata when he dubs JB’s government as
“clueless.” Her government seems to have no clue about what amounts to best
interest of the people and the modus operandi for securing the same. Instead, what
is glaringly apparent is a very strong suggestion that the only item on her
government’s agenda is self-interest. The cash-gate scandal alone is enough to
back up the suggestion. A quick perusal through the media is enough to leave
one with an appreciation of the public’s painful feeling about the strength of
the likelihood of JB’s personal involvement in the scandal despite all the
cover-ups. In my mind, if JB were a true statesman, the Cash-gate scandal alone
was enough to warrant her resignation because the best interest of the people
demands, in such circumstances, that she should resign. Self-interest is also
evident in her apparent charitable works. To a discerning mind, it is not
difficult to see how JB’s apparent charitable works of distributing maize and
providing houses for the poor run contrary to the highest moral principle
propounded by Jesus Christ himself, of whom everybody knows JB is a follower,
in Matthews 6: 2-4, “So when you give something to a needy person, do not make
a big show of it, as the hypocrites do in the houses of worship and the
streets. They do it so that the people will praise them. I assure you, they
have already been paid in full. But when you help a needy person, do it in such
a way that even your closest friend will not know about it. Then it will be a
private matter. And your Father, who sees what you do in private, will reward
you.” Is it not axiomatic that JB’s apparently charitable works are a big show
wherever she makes them and on MBC, the State owned television and radio
stations? Between privacy and seeking people’s praise, what can an ordinary
Malawian infer from such works? To the extent that JB does not execute her apparently
charitable works in such a way that her closest friend will not know about them,
I have the misfortune of inferring nothing but self-interest and people’s praise.
Finally, apart from decisions on Omar al-Bashir and devaluation of the Kwacha
in order to propitiate the donor community, such being decisions demanding no
extraordinary art of true statesmanship, I have never seen any progressive
activity on the part of JB’s government towards achievement of a radical goal
in the best interest of the Malawi nation, which, as it often should be the
case, runs against the law or the will of the people, and which JB has had to
justify in a statesmanlike manner on grounds of best interest of the nation.
This alone is a very strong indication, in my view, of worrisome paucity of a
scientific principle behind JB’s leadership. I could have gone far to render an
opinion on JB’s levels of education compared to other candidates and attempt to
deduce conclusions with respect to her philosophical capacity. But in view of
the foregoing considerations, such an effort would not be an economical use of
the time resource. Accordingly, JB dismally fails to pass my test of true
statesmanship and, as such, cannot win my vote.
Mr. Atupele Muluzi, in my view, is a very promising young and
energetic ambitious leader with apparently very remarkable traits of a true
statesman. Tolerably educated as a lawyer, the forceful young man hit his way
to Parliament and subsequently flew over with palpable ambience to become
Presidential candidate for his party, UDF. I have considerable levels of
admiration for this man. I have no serious difficulties inferring the
possibility of governing according to a scientific principle from his level of
education and political experience. My only worry about Mr. Atupele Muluzi,
however, is as to whether he could govern with the interest of the people
unswervingly at heart. In that regard, I heavily fear the incidence of his age
and his connection with Dr. Bakili Muluzi, his father and former State
President of Malawi. As regards his father, history is replete with indications
that Bakili Muluzi has an unstoppable yearn for power. This man sought to
change our Constitution, with no apparent best interest of the people in view,
as soon as his term of office was about to wind up. As if that was not enough,
and with no apparent best interest of the people in view, he again sought to
contest for Presidency in 2009, way after he had already served the maximum ten
years term, and in the face of legal bars. Incredible ability in Bakili Muluzi
to manipulate those he puts or helps put in power, is of great concern, in my
opinion, in this context. Having handpicked Bingu to lead UDF in 2004, for
instance, Bakili Muluzi still wanted to control the wheels of government from,
as Bingu later put it, “the carrier behind,” by seeking to stage-manage Bingu. This
trait in Bakili forced Bingu, while incumbent State President, to resign from
UDF and form his own political party, DPP. I am strongly tempted to think that
Bakili Muluzi has played a critical role in mapping out Atupele Muluzi’s
political career. As such, the likelihood that Bakili could seek to manipulate
his son, in the event that the son becomes State President, and that the son
could succumb to the manipulation, in my view, is extremely high. Further,
judging by historical precedent, the likelihood that such manipulation will not
be in the interest of the people is not difficult to feel. As regards Atupele’s
age, the possibility of clinging to power when his term of office elapses is an
issue worth probing. If he becomes President this year, he is around 35 years,
and assuming he serves the full 10 years term, our young man will be around 45
years when his term of offices completely expires. At 45 years, he will
doubtlessly be very physically and politically energetic. Given the well-known
tendency of power, that it corrupts, and given the likelihood of manipulation
from his father, what are the chances that Atupele Muluzi at around 45 years
old, when his legally acceptable period of office will have expired, might
cling on to power at all costs? What is the likelihood that his clinging to
power could not necessarily be in the best interest of the people? I have the
unfortunate feeling of great fear that there is an enormous risk, given the
foregoing considerations, that Atupele Muluzi might cling to power at the
expense of best interest of the people. It is to this extent that, in my
opinion, a presumption of true statesmanship in favour of Mr. Atupele Muluzi carries
with it a high risk of being compromised. Atupele Muluzi loses my reasoned vote
on that note.
Dr. Lazarus Chakwera is, in my estimation, a very impressive man. His
holding of a PhD alone is enough for one to hazard a safe presumption in his
favour that he is a man capable of designing a philosophical idea upon which he
could govern according to a scientific principle. However, most worrisome is
his perceptible lack of experience in active politics. This man has never even
been a Member of Parliament before. For him just to move from being a very
remarkable Pastor to becoming State President, to me, amounts to an excruciatingly
dangerous experimentation with the art of statesmanship. The kind of danger
involved, in my view, is one that Malawi is not ready to take and does not need
to take, especially at a time when what she needs the most is real development
and national advancement; and not experimentation with political ideas. It is
doubtful in my mind if Chakwera, given scantiness of his political experience,
could correctly appreciate the concept of best interest of the people. It is
further doubtful if, in such circumstances, he could discern a situation where
tenets of the law and democracy negate the best interest of the people. Even
assuming that he commanded such discernment, which is disputed, I have grave
doubts if he could manage to map out a workable method in such circumstances
for pinning down the best interest of the people with as little risk of failure
as possible. Accordingly, there are very high chances, in my opinion, that
Chakwera may not yet be a true statesman. Dr. Lazarus Chakwera dismally fails
to win my vote too on that note.
DPP’s
Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika (APM) is a man who should lose my vote at once
if I solely based it on emotional impulse. This man was once at the heart of a
regime that, as fresh memories will show, employed brutal tactics against its
very own citizens; rendered the economy ramshackle and had no shame in
advancing purposeless tribalistic and nepotistic policies. I almost fell victim
to DPP’s brutal tactics and had Bingu lived, only God knows if I would be alive
today. Emotionally speaking, I have no kind words for DPP. An emotional vote,
however, is exactly what I do not intend to cast this year. When I shed off my
emotional impulses and instead engage the power of the natural light of reason
in examining DPP’s APM, I see a colossal political figure in APM. He strikes me
with feelings of awe akin to those that take grip of me when I am approaching a
very huge mountain. To start with, he is not his brother, the late Bingu wa
Mutharika, who almost everybody loathes. I have no doubt that their characters
and temperaments cannot be identical. His academic qualifications, his
professional career and his habits leave me with one unwavering inference: that
this man is one buccaneer who could govern, in all probability, according to a
remarkable scientific principle. In addition to having served as a member of
Parliament and Cabinet Minister, he hammered his way up to become presidential
candidate for his party, DPP. APM, a jurist of profound experience and soaring
academic attainments, was also one of the key players in the drafting our
current Constitution. From these considerations alone, I have no difficulties
deducing a very strong presumption in his favour that he might, in all
probability, command an undoubted capacity to discern what amounts to best
interest of the people. In the same vein, I am stalwartly persuaded to conclude
that APM could with little doubt command the ability to pin down the best
interest of the people, whether in accordance with the law or against the law;
and whether with the will of the people or against the will of the people, with
as little risk of failure as possible. My calculations about his statesmanlike
character, however, have one bump to tackle: his remarkable failures boldly written
in his political career. Two major ones
quickly come to mind. First, APM failed the nation while he was Minister of
Education over the UNIMA/Mukhito saga. He was very silent and left his despotic
brother to pull the shots. Secondly, APM was replete with indiscretions
amounting to an attempted coup after Bingu’s death. He ardently questioned whether
JB, who had ceased to be a member of DPP, a party that ushered her into office
as State Vice President, could automatically take over government after Bingu’s
death. This was a question loaded with a genuine constitutional problem worth
taking to Court for determination, but the circumstances smelled of self-interest
more perhaps than best interest of the nation. However, just as every man, though he be
the greatest genius, has very definite limitations in some one sphere of
knowledge, and thus attests his common origin with the essentially perverse and
stupid mass of mankind, so also has every man something in his nature which is
positively evil. Even the best, nay the noblest, character will sometimes
surprise us by isolated traits of depravity; as though it were to acknowledge
his kinship with the human race, in which villainy—nay, cruelty—is to be found
in that degree. In my opinion, a balance between APM’s failures and his actual
potential, leave me with one conclusion: that his potential outweighs his
failures so far. As regards the UNIMA/Mukhito saga, who knows whether
APM had a brilliant idea to tackle the problem, an idea which perhaps Bingu
deliberately thwarted because he did not like it, and hence APM’s silence? As
regards the attempted coup, can it not be said with confidence that his drive
to question establishments is one stroke of genius? Further, can it not be
confidently said that the mere fact that APM bowed down to General Odilo is
itself a good indication that APM is a man who can quickly discern a wrong path
and amend his steps accordingly? Are these not traits of a true statesman? APM,
in my fair opinion, is the only person amongst this year’s frontline contenders
who has a strong appearance of being one coming closest to the ideal of true
statesmanship. Unless calamity prevents him from contesting the race to State
House, APM unequivocally wins my vote.
Epitome of the power it commands is the only befitting description of
my vote this year. It will be a vote imbued with the true essence of my will;
an unbridled act of a real and necessary force of nature: the “I” in me. It
will be an immortal vote squarely fit to stand at par with immortal acts of the
gods; a vote that qualifies to partake in privileges only meant for superior
and divine forces behind all existence. It is in the immortality of my May 2014
vote alone that my ultimate satisfaction shall lie. Whether APM is visited with
victory or defeat by the end of the day is not my fault, does not lie within my
powers, is not my duty and is only the concern of God or the mysterious forces
that iron out the minute processes of this life; and shall not have any impact
whatsoever on my disposition or state of mind in any way whatsoever. The immortal
vote I am casting this year is incapable of making me blissful or sad and regretful
only based on the outcome of the elections.
MICHAEL 61 BILLION GOBA CHIPETA, the First.
10th day of February 2014, BLANTYRE, MALAWI.
