By Burnett Munthali
President Lazarus Chakwera’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) offered a moment of reflection on the progress made since his inauguration as the sixth President of the Republic of Malawi. In the opening remarks of the address, delivered with an air of gravitas, Chakwera highlighted the significant time that had passed—1,684 days since the historic moment of his swearing-in. This was not just a numerical count, but a symbol of the work undertaken during his tenure to address the long-standing issues that have plagued Malawi’s development.
Chakwera’s rhetorical style placed considerable emphasis on the journey of systemic change and the hardship involved. Describing the administration’s efforts as a “painful” process of “systemic surgery,” he underscored the notion that deep-rooted reforms require considerable sacrifice before the benefits can be realized. His allusion to the “pain” resonates deeply, especially given the criticisms that his government has faced over the past four years. This theme, woven throughout the speech, appeared to serve two purposes: to explain the challenges his government has encountered and to justify the difficult measures that have been taken, both domestically and internationally.
A key aspect of Chakwera’s address was his reflection on the economic and infrastructural policies introduced during his presidency. In 2020, his government took bold steps, such as initiating the revival of the railway system and reopening diplomatic relations with Israel. These moves, according to Chakwera, were met with resistance, particularly in the trucking industry, which had long relied on road transport. Similarly, the decision to restore ties with Israel, a country that had previously been diplomatically ostracized, raised eyebrows among critics. The President openly acknowledged the pain these decisions caused in certain sectors, framing them as necessary for the greater good of the nation.
The mention of these contentious reforms suggests a president who is comfortable acknowledging the unpopularity of some of his actions but simultaneously framing them as part of the larger picture of Malawi’s long-term recovery. By invoking the image of “systemic surgery,” Chakwera positioned himself as a leader committed to transformative change, despite the temporary discomfort such change may cause. However, while this portrayal of hardship can be compelling, it also raises questions about the government’s handling of public dissent and the extent to which these policies have brought tangible benefits to ordinary citizens.
Chakwera’s address on page 3 of his speech hints at a complex relationship with his own administration’s actions. It reflects an understanding that governance is not a smooth path, especially when confronting the entrenched problems of corruption, inefficiency, and inadequate infrastructure. Yet, there remains a gap between this grand vision of systemic reform and the lived experiences of Malawians, particularly those in rural areas who are still grappling with issues such as access to basic services, economic opportunities, and infrastructure.
Furthermore, the reference to the railway system revival was not only a point of pride but a signal of Chakwera’s broader ambition to rejuvenate the country’s infrastructure and boost economic growth. However, critics have raised concerns about the pace of these projects and the actual impact on local communities. While the President lauded the railway revival as a crucial step in reducing the country’s dependence on road transport, many have questioned the government’s capacity to manage large-scale infrastructure projects and whether such initiatives will genuinely alleviate the burdens faced by ordinary Malawians.
The diplomatic shift towards Israel also offers an intriguing point of analysis. Chakwera’s decision to re-establish ties with Israel was a significant political move, signaling a break from the previous administration’s stance on the Middle Eastern country. This decision, while welcomed by some, sparked controversy, particularly among those who questioned the appropriateness of aligning with a country that has faced global criticism for its policies towards Palestine. The President’s acknowledgment of the political fallout from this decision suggests a willingness to navigate difficult political terrain, but it also highlights the complexities of foreign diplomacy and the domestic fallout that such decisions can have.
In summary, President Chakwera’s reflection on the past 1,684 days serves as both a justification of his leadership and a call for continued support despite the inherent difficulties of the reform process. While his address paints a picture of a determined leader undertaking painful but necessary actions for the country’s betterment, it also opens the door to questions about the actual effectiveness of these reforms. The public will be keenly observing the tangible outcomes of these “systemic surgeries” and whether they result in a more prosperous, equitable Malawi in the years to come.
