The recent rerun of Malawi’s presidential elections following the Constitutional Court’s annulment has put a check on anti-democratic tendencies by its former president, but the credit for this victory goes entirely to Malawi’s tenacious judiciary and not to the international observers who are meant to support it.
Malawi, with a population of nearly 19 million, is one of the world’s poorest countries, with an annual GDP per capita of around $370. Despite the many developmental obstacles it faces, it has long been a favorite of international donors and has been admired for its relatively robust democracy after the end of Hastings Banda’s dictatorship in 1994.
Nevertheless, Malawi’s elections in May 2019 were marred by blatant electoral fraud, with incumbent President Peter Mutharika of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) benefitting from tally sheets altered by Tipp-Ex, a correction fluid. As Mutharika initially refused to concede, Malawians took to the streets to demand a rerun.
Concurrently, the two primary opposition parties – the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and the United Transformation Movement (UTM) – took the case to Malawi’s Constitutional Court. In February this year, the Court annulled the results of the 2019 election and called for a new vote within 150 days, a ruling which was later upheld by the Supreme Court.
Mutharika contrived to delay the elections as long as possible by filing lawsuits, trying to force the Supreme Court Chief Justice to resign, and delaying the appointment a new head of the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC). The fresh elections were nevertheless held on June 23rd and delivered a decisive victory to Lazarus Chakwera of the MCP, who won with 58.57% of the votes.
Mutharika has subsequently claimed electoral fraud, including voting irregularities, violence, and intimidation, but the MEC has rejected his claims. On account of the Covid-19 pandemic, no foreign observers were able to monitor the elections, but the results have been widely accepted: Chakwera is now Malawi’s newest president.
The Mutharika years
Although he was only elected as president in 2014, Mutharika has a long and controversial history in Malawian politics. His brother, Bingu wa Mutharika, served as president from 2004 until his sudden death in 2012, while he served variously as Minister of Justice, Minister of Education, Science and Technology, and Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2009 to 2012.
Despite Malawi’s impressive economic growth and status as a favorite of international donors, Bingu wa Mutharika’s tenure in office was embroiled in allegations of corruption, ill-advised economic policies, and rampant abuse of human rights, including the shooting of nearly 20 protesters and the mysterious murder of student activist Robert Chasowa in 2011.
As a result of these developments, most Western donors slashed aid to Malawi. At the same time, Vice-President Joyce Banda began to criticize the president for his plans to groom his brother as presidential successor, leading to her expulsion from the party.
After Bingu wa Mutharika died abruptly in 2012, the DPP sought to stage a coup by sending the deceased president’s corpse to South Africa for alleged medical treatment while arguing that Banda was unable to become president because she was no longer a member of the party. Banda ultimately formed a coalition of supporters, including foreign donors and the head of the armed forces, and was soon sworn in as president.
The presidency of Banda – who was seen initially as a reformer and was supported by foreign donors – later became mired in corruption following the 2013 “cashgate” scandal, and she lost the following elections to Peter Mutharika in 2014.
Domestic institutions and the international community
The significance of the Malawi Constitutional Court’s ruling earlier this year cannot be understated – it is only the second time in African history that a court has annulled an election, following a ruling in Kenya in 2017. Despite the best efforts by Mutharika and the DPP to influence and intimidate the Court into ruling in its favor, Malawi’s judicial system has proven its independence and power in upholding democratic principles. Although it is one of the poorest countries in the world, Malawi shows that strong institutions can preserve democracy and ensure that politicians are not above the law. Lawyers also joined in protest to show solidarity with the Court and its judges.
The Court’s ruling, however, also has a darker side. The initial elections in 2019 were overseen by numerous foreign election monitors, including the European Union (EU), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the African Union (AU) and the Commonwealth of Nations.
All observers endorsed the initial election results, with the EU Election Observation Mission calling the elections “well-managed, inclusive, transparent and competitive.” The mission conceded “tensions” and an “unlevel playing field” but dismissed “various claims of ‘rigging.’” More worryingly, the SADC praised the MEC and its performance “in line with the electoral law and Constitution,” and the Commonwealth praised its “professionalism and dedication.” The AU mission did not note “any serious concerns with the process, either witnessed or observed.” (Malawi’s Constitutional Court, conversely, found “widespread, systematic and grave” irregularities.)
The legitimacy that these reports convey – despite the flagrant electoral fraud through such amateur and brazen tactics – presents a serious case of moral hazard for all international observers. Big donor countries, including EU states, the UK, and the US, as well as international and regional organizations carry significant clout when they observe and validate local elections, serving as a potential tool that authoritarian leaders can use to legitimize their rule. It is thus an additional credit to Malawi’s judiciary that it nullified the elections in spite of the tacit support of foreign observers.
Malawi’s most recent elections therefore illustrate both the need and power of strong institutions in even the most inauspicious circumstances alongside the moral hazard of foreign election monitors. If foreign observers are unable to detect fraud as clear as Tipp-Ex, the legitimacy they confer is not only unfounded but actively dangerous in supporting would-be autocrats.
This invites a need to rethink how foreign election monitoring is conducted and when the costs might outweigh the benefits. The rerun of Malawi’s election is an incontestable victory for the country’s democracy and the power of Malawian citizens, but this is purely to the credit of its domestic institutions and despite foreign observers. This should give pause to the international community in considering how it can best support development and democracy in countries around the world.
Patrick McGrath received his MA from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna and his BA in International Relations from Tufts University. He worked for two years in Serbia as a Project Manager at the NGO NorthStar and as a Faculty Lecturer at the State University of Novi Pazar as a recipient of a US Fulbright scholarship. He was a 2016 Think Viségrad Fellow at the Slovak Foreign Policy Association in Bratislava, Slovakia, and he completed internships at the Institute for Democracy and Mediation in Tirana, Albania and the International Centre for Policy Studies in Kyiv, Ukraine.