Two days of mass protests rocked the
tiny African nation of Malawi in late July. Protesters were met with
police violence in one of the largest protests in the nation’s
history.
The demonstrations were touched off by
fuel and power shortages, along with an inflationary crisis. In three
cities across the country, demonstrators targeted President Bingu wa
Mutharika, whose policies they blame for the country’s troubles.
Mutharika met the protests with violence, turning the demonstrations
into street battles and leaving 19 dead.
Many of the principal leaders of the
July demonstrations have been driven underground to avoid potential
imprisonment or death. Meanwhile Mutharika has vowed to “smoke out”
any “thugs” who were committing “treason” by protesting.
Despite continued repression, protest
leaders have given the president an ultimatum to meet a series of
demands by August 16 or face more mass demonstrations. The protesters
are demanding the resolution of fuel and other shortages, and for an
audit on the finances of the president and his cabinet members, whose
spending is also blamed for some of Malawi’s economic woes.
Malawi is a primarily rural country
with 90 percent of the population living in rural areas. Most of
Malawi’s people are engaged in small-scale agriculture, primarily
for subsistence. Agricultural exports are the principal driver of
Malawi’s economy. Tobacco is the primary export commodity, with
maize production becoming increasingly important.
In 2006, the president began to ignore
the dictates of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and
Western governments by reintroducing agricultural subsidies. In
particular, government fertilizer subsidies allowed the maize crop to
flourish. It appeared as if an agriculture boom would lead Malawi out
of poverty.
However, despite a 7 percent annual
growth rate over the past five years, Malawi has been unable to
emerge from its deeply impoverished state. Western donors point to
corruption on the part of the Mutharika administration as the culprit
for the diminishing economic returns, and the UK and U.S. governments
among others have suspended a number of aid projects.
Protesters have targeted in particular
the president’s purchase of a private jet as contributing to the
foreign exchange crisis. Malawi depends heavily on imports of fuel
and a number of other goods; and to make matters worse, poor
infrastructure drives up transportation costs. Foreign currency, or
exchange, is necessary to finance these imports.
When there is not enough foreign
exchange, shortages ensue and prices go up, causing severe hardship.
Moreover, government corruption such as the purchase of luxury items
using scarce foreign exchange seriously imperils its ability to
provide subsidies to help prevent poverty and sustain economic
growth.
The targeting of corruption by both
Western capitalist aid officials and the protest movement are
qualitatively different. Western donors never fully accepted the
subsidies program and have provided it with tepid support. But their
cynical use of corruption, and now “human rights violations,” is
a smokescreen for a de facto sanctions regime.
Malawi relies on donor support for 40
percent of its government revenue. Any cut, or total suspension of
aid, even accounting for corruption, condemns millions of Malawi
people to further impoverishment. This aid embargo is being used as a
weapon by the imperialist nations to bring Mutharika to heel for
forging ahead against their free market dictates.
The protesters seem most concerned with
the economic and political rights of the broad mass of the country’s
people. Meeting these demands would require a continuation of the
subsidies regime in agriculture and basic import commodities, as well
as zero-tolerance for government corruption, to maintain the highest
living standards, over the broadest swath of the population. This
still leaves the question of how to go against dictates from the
donor nations when their support is crucial to government revenues.
Mutharika’s response to this dilemma
was to attempt to cut government expenditures with an austerity
budget. The protest movement has rejected this. Their goals are
centered on starting some sort of national dialogue with the
president to address the issue of the economic difficulties and how
to overcome them.
Sharp reductions in Western donor aid,
which ensure government cutbacks, undermine one of the key factors
for any sort of negotiated resolution in Malawi. By weakening the
government’s ability to fund its activities, coming to terms with the
protest movement on fuel subsidies and power shortages could be
impossible. This in turn could prompt Mutharika’s overthrow. There
is precedent for this, as long-time leader Hastings Banda was forced
from office in Malawi amidst mass protests and election referendums
in 1993.
As the protest movement goes forward
into August, progressive and revolutionary-minded people in the
United States should support their aims. We should also oppose any
attempts by imperialist governments to use aid or sanctions as a
weapon to influence the political process of Malawi.
