WHY SECTION 64 MAY SOLVE THE SECTION 65 PUZZLE

Recent political events in Ndirande  where Honorable Aaron Sangala is Member of parliament, call for a reflection on the role that the Malawian electorate have apart from voting. While over the past few years, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding  the application of Section 65 of the Republican Constitution, which bars parliamentarians from leaving the party on whose ticket they got into parliament, to join another grouping which is, or whose objectives are  ‘political in nature”-(a section which gives political parties power over their MP), there is nothing that is there even controversially that safeguards the interests of the voter after the elections.

While  section 65 both in its intent and phrasing sound very clear as purposed to safeguard our democracy by curbing political opportunism, politicians, more especially parliamentarians have found it very hard to live with. Most parliamentarians who argue against the section base their case on the freedom of association which is also provided for within the same constitution. Thus for them, section 65 tramples upon their right to associate with any grouping they want to associate with. It is also common for those parliamentarians who dump their parties for other parties to claim that they sought consent from the electorate.

It is based on this argument (That consent is sought from the electorate) that I argue that while section 65 of the constitution is very important, the ultimate solution to the section 65 controversy lies in the repealed section 64. The recall provision which was provided for in the repealed section 64, is perhaps the only tool through which the parliamentarians can be held accountable for their actions to the electorate and not necessarily to the party they belong to. Section 64 would allow parliamentarians to mind their campaign promises, will reduce crookedness  and egoism from the democratic system. After all, in a democracy, power derives from the people and it should be the people and not the political parties who should decide whether their MP has to be removed from position or not.

For information sake, the recall provision can be defined as a procedure that allows the electorate  to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office. Recall provisions have been  used in countries like United States and have helped to have state officials to be accountable to the electorate. For the electorate, recalls are much more effective and may make more sense than methods like section 65 and impeachment. This is so because in a recall, people do vote and the results are legitimate as compared to the other two methods which are more or less legal processes and always result in prolonged legal battles.

Therefore, a recall provision like the one provided by the repealed section 64 is a very simple  political device which can be easily understood and used by the electorate to demand accountability from the elected officials. This will further instill discipline in the elected officials and will prevent them from making campaign promises they cannot fulfill. The electorate needs to be protected feel valued at all times  and not merely be used as a ladder for achieving someone political ambitions. Section 64 thus guarantees this protection hence its reinstatement should not be an issue for discussion but rather an obligation that those responsible for reviewing the constitution have.

While section 65 gives more power to the party that sponsored one into parliament and the speaker of the National assembly, section 64 would be more relevant as the power to recall or to maintain the parliamentarians lies with the people. Thus if the people feel unsatisfied or betrayed by their parliamentarians decision to join another party, they can recall him outright via the recall election. This thus would mean that the parliamentarians decision to leave a party that sponsored them if it is upheld by the electorate would bear more legitimacy hence no need for having his seat declared vacant as proposed in section 65.

The interesting case of Ndirande where the people are said to be demanding for the resignation of their MP, could have been easily dealt with using the recall provision. However, as it stands, the people of Ndirande may not have any legitimate means to remove their MP and simply have to wait until 2014. One then wonders what democracy in Malawi really is, if the electorate is denied the power to hold their elected officials accountable.

Bringing back section 64 then, would not only bring sanity to the system but would also be an ultimate victory for democracy as people who vote would have the power to hold their MPs accountable.

It is based on these arguments that I am of the view that as  focus is now on the application of section 65 on those  who crossed the floor, such efforts must go together with the demand to have section 64 brought back. It is only when this section is brought back that the poor Malawian will be able to enjoy quality representation from their MPs and only then, will democracy have a real meaning.