Former Malawi President Bakili Muluzi said President Bingu wa Mutharika was likely to become a worse dictator than Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.
Muluzi said Mutharika’s dictatorial tendencies were evidenced by the limits on freedom of expression, a one-sided anti-corruption drive that attacked only opposition figures, a stacked electoral commission, and the monopolisation by government of public media.
The conduct of the police was biased. Several of his rallies had been broken up or stopped before they started.
Muluzi said Mutharika had attempted to bribe traditional authorities to bar opposition parties from their areas and prevent opposition rallies.
Comparing Mutharika to Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Muluzi said that at least Mugabe passed laws enabling his actions. Mutharika disregarded laws altogether.
Full cable:
Viewing cable 08LILONGWE573, MALAWI: MULUZI EXPLAINS WHY HE MUST COME BACK
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
|
Reference ID |
Created |
Classification |
Origin |
VZCZCXRO2405
RR RUEHDU RUEHMR RUEHRN
DE RUEHLG #0573/01 2700947
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 260947Z SEP 08
FM AMEMBASSY LILONGWE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0020
INFO RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WASHINGTON DC
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 LILONGWE 000573
SIPDIS
STATE FOR AF/S – E. PELLETREAU
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/23/2018
SUBJECT: MALAWI: MULUZI EXPLAINS WHY HE MUST COME BACK
REF: A. LILONGWE 531
¶B. LILONGWE 513
¶C. LILONGWE 307
¶D. LILONGWE 252
¶E. LILONGWE 56
LILONGWE 00000573 001.2 OF 002
Classified By: Charge d’Affaires Kevin Sullivan for Reason 1.4 (d)
¶1. (C) Summary: In a September 4 discussion with the Charge
d’Affaires, former president Bakili Muluzi admitted he
selected Mutharika as a successor over many senior UDF
officials, nearly splitting his own party. Muluzi defended
the selection based on Mutharika’s economic reform
experience, but said the people could no longer stand the
backward steps on the road to democracy that Mutharika has
taken. Muluzi called Mutharika a dictator who used
intimidation, didn’t allow free expression, and had no
respect for the rule of law. He outlined several claims of
corruption in the current government as well. Muluzi
complained that foreign donors had been some of his biggest
critics, but their current silence was viewed as a sign of
tacit approval of Mutharika’s actions. While Muluzi’s claims
obviously have a political motive, he rightly points out that
Mutharika’s own record on rule of law and corruption is not
without flaws. End Summary.
MULUZI: MUTHARIKA A STEP BACKWARD FOR DEMOCRACY
——————————————— —-
¶2. (C) On September 4, the CDA and poloff called on former
president and current United Democratic Front (UDF)
presidential candidate Bakili Muluzi, who was joined by
former UDF National Secretary Harry Thomson and UDF Director
of Research Humphrey Mvula. Muluzi told the CDA it was “the
people” who were demanding that he return to run against
Mutharika in 2009. He stated that the UDF fought long and
hard for democracy, and the party would not let it slide
backwards. Mvula explained that the UDF had consolidated
democracy during Muluzi’s decade in office and the UDF had
felt in 2004 that it was time to marry democracy to economic
transformation. Muluzi defended his selection of former
political outsider Bingu wa Mutharika over several
high-ranking UDF members based on the former’s economic
qualifications. He admitted the decision came close to
splintering the party, but said these problems were in the
past. However, Muluzi acknowledged his inability to see
Mutharika’s own ambition in 2004 continued to threaten the
party. Muluzi reiterated that Malawians saw him as the only
one who could rectify the deteriorationg in democracy that
Mutharika had brought about.
A DICTATOR IN THE MAKING
————————
¶3. (C) Muluzi enumerated what he saw as Mutharika’s
dictatorial tendencies, citing limits on freedom of
expression, a one-sided anti-corruption drive that attacked
only opposition figures, a stacked electoral commission, and
the monopolization by government of public media. He said
the conduct of the police was biased, pointing out that
several of his rallies had been broken up or stopped before
they started. He also claimed Mutharika had attempted to
bribe traditional authorities to bar opposition parties from
their areas and prevent opposition rallies. Muluzi,
comparing Mutharika to Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, said that at
least Mugabe passed laws enabling his actions, while
Mutharika disregarded laws altogether.
¶4. (C) Mvula supported Muluzi’s claims, stating the police
are now targeting UDF members, investigating and arresting
without warrants. Mvula claimed over 290 such cases existed
against UDF officials, including treason charges against
Vice-President Cassim Chilumpha and Muluzi himself (ref C).
Mvula also warned the CDA that foreign missions should be
careful in their dealings with the Malawi Electoral
Commission (MEC), saying the commissioners were beholden to
Mutharika. He also made the bold claim that the information
systems consultants at the MEC were all brought in from
Zimbabwe by Mutharika specifically to set up a parallel vote
tally center to steal the election. (Comment: Ironically,
Mvula was the purported UDF mastermind behind the claimed
election rigging in 2004 in which many believe Muluzi
engineered Mutharika’s victory. End comment) Mvula had
little confidence the judiciary would help to reign in
Mutharika since the new Chief Justice, who was appointed
without a Parliamentary quorum (ref D), also owed a political
debt to Mutharika.
MULUZI: YOU WERE HARDER ON ME…
——————————–
LILONGWE 00000573 002.2 OF 002
¶5. (C) Muluzi and company continued a familiar UDF refrain
that foreign-aid donors were harder on his administration
than they have been on Mutharika. Muluzi pointed out that
when he was in power, diplomatic missions leaned on him to
open up Malawi Broadcasting Corporation to the opposition,
yet now remained silent on the same issue. Muluzi also
questioned donor silence on Mutharika’s recent edict that all
maize must be sold to government parastatal ADMARC (ref B)
after pressuring him to liberalize the sector. Thomson went
further, attacking Mutharika’s highly-touted economic record,
saying that although initially painful, the Muluzi regime
yielded to donor pressure to float the kwacha exchange rate.
This act led to a large devaluation of Malawi’s currency.
Thomson noted that Mutharika had essentially fixed the kwacha
at MK 142 to USD 1 for well over a year without consequence.
Thomson questioned how Malawi was still maintaining
single-digit inflation without government manipulation given
the rapid rise in prices of external commodities.
¶6. (C) Muluzi’s main complaint, however, was the silence from
the diplomatic community on Mutharika’s violations of the
rule of law. He was surprised donors did not comment more
vocally on the lack of local government elections since 2005,
the failure to implement Section 65 of the constitution in
Parliament, and the “illegal” appointment of the electoral
commission and other government officials. Muluzi admitted
that his government also had disputes with the opposition
just like Mutharika, but claimed he always kept an open
dialogue with the opposition to find compromises. He
contended that Mutharika, feeling donor silence equated to
support, had refused to work with the opposition from the
beginning of his administration and remained unwilling to
discuss issues that divide the nation.
UDF CLAIMS DPP RIFE WITH CORRUPTION
————————————
¶7. (C) Muluzi, who is the subject of an active corruption
investigation himself (ref A), also asked why donors were
silent on issues of corruption in the DPP. Muluzi cited the
Clerk of Parliament procurement scandal, the bribery case
involving Minister of Information Patricia Kaliati, claims of
embezzlement by Minister of Justice Henry Phoya, and
questionable awards of maize seed, fertilizer, and road
construction contracts as examples of the ongoing corruption.
He said all of these have gone uninvestigated, unpunished,
and unmentioned by donors. UDF party officials also
repeatedly question how Mutharika has gone from living under
his father’s roof to owning at least four commercial farming
enterprises since becoming President without raising any
eyebrows among international partners.
IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE
————————
¶8. (C) Comment: Muluzi and his cohorts are poorly positioned
to criticize the current GOM given their own history and
subsequent attempts to play puppet-master to Mutharika.
Muluzi, viewed by many of UDF’s prodigal sons as the only
possible source of financing to confront Mutharika in next
year’s election, has at least superficially recemented
relationships fractured by his annointment of Mutharika. He
remains a charismatic and dynamic personality who commands
public attention, if not widespread support. His repeated
comments that “the people” are demanding his return lack
credibility, and most observers do not believe he has a
realistic chance to prevail in 2009. It is Muluzi’s wealth,
rather than strong support within the UDF, that has limited
internal opposition (ref E). At the same time, Muluzi’s
claims about Mutharika’s corruption, disregard for the rule
of law, and potential for election rigging cannot be totally
disregarded. After all, who better to know the potential
abuses of government than one who practiced them for a decade.
SULLIVAN
(17 VIEWS)
0 Comments