La Televisión y sus efectos

The starting point of the discussion to the Muluzi Administration’s response to the land question is the promises that the advocates of multiparty politics made during the campaigns in the run up to the referendum of 14 June, 1993 and the general elections of 17 May, 1994 respectively. These advocates – particularly the United Democratic Front and the Alliance for Democracy – promised that multipartyism will bring with it land reform based on a fair redistribution of land to the land deprived. This promise was particularly made repeatedly in southern Malawi where land pressure is most acute.113 The land question was linked to poverty whereby the multiparty advocates often pointed out the asymmetry in land relations under the colonial State and the Banda Administration as a device to sustain the ‘crippling levels of poverty’ among the land deprived.114

The Muluzi Administration in conjunction with the country’s development partners commissioned land utilization studies which were conducted between 1995 and 1998; and empanelled a Presidential Commission of Inquiry on Land Policy Reform in 1996. I discuss these developments fully in Chapter 5. Suffice it to say that there is a disjuncture between the macroeconomic frameworks and the land reform frameworks. Since the former take precedence over all policy initiatives in the country, the disjuncture has led to the continued entrenchment of the land question. To use Shamir’s language, the nature of responsibilization here is that one market of authority (the macroeconomic framework) prevails over the other (the land reform initiatives).115

The rhetoric of a fair distribution of land to the land deprived continued in the Legislature after the general elections of 17 May, 1994. There was an exuberant tone regarding land relations: the emphasis was on the urgent need for ‘fair distribution’ or ‘equitable distribution’ of arable land for ‘economic use’ in favour of the land deprived who have had no assistance from the land rich.116 Honourable Thengo

113 _{See FE Kanyongolo, note 15, 131; B Chinsinga, note 17; and PE Peters & D Kambewa,}

Introduction, note 60.

114 _{See B Chinsinga, note 17, 4.} 115 _{See R Shamir, Introduction, note 67.}

116 _{See Government of Malawi Proceedings of Parliament, 30}th _{Session, 1}st _{Meeting, 30}th _June–8th _July, 1994 (Zomba: Government Printer, 1994) 24; Government of Malawi Proceedings of Parliament, 30th Session,2nd Meeting, 24th October–11th November, 1994 (Zomba: Government Printer, 1994) 227, 487,

527, 554, 633, and 670–671; and Government of Malawi Proceedings of Parliament, 30th Session 3rd

Meeting (Zomba: Government Printer, 1994) 1072, 1084–1085, 1090, 1092, 1099, 1109, 1178, 1188, 1282–1283, 1287, and 1395. A lone voice from the Opposition cautioned that Government must not interfere with capital and emphasized the ‘sanctity’ of section 28 of the Constitution where Government has ‘no right to take one’s property, particularly doing so in total disregard of the law and

Maloya, member of Parliament for Machinga North East (United Democratic Front), speaking in 1994, perfectly captures the prevailing sentiments when he observed that the land deprived have had no assistance for their ‘degradation’ and ‘servitude’ through the ‘selfishness of the wealthy’. He pointed out that the ‘“labouring class” are [sic] tenants at the mercy of the landlords’ and work in conditions ‘at the pleasure of the then party leaders and estate owners’ who considered themselves the ‘supreme law’.117

But even amidst the exuberance in the Legislature, the rhetoric changed. Increasingly, by the time of the second term of the Muluzi Administration from 1999 onwards, the rhetoric moved to the promotion of land reform grounded in a land redistribution model based on a willing seller/willing buyer approach. For example, following the presentation of the Ministerial Statement on the National Land Policy delivered to the Legislature in 2002, Honourable Thengo Maloya, now as the Minister responsible for land matters, concludes:

[T]his land policy has been prepared carefully and in a balanced manner to remove most of the pressing problems that have created tenure insecurity and undermined speedy and transparent land transactions in Malawi. In many cases, the inadequacies of the existing laws, retrogressive customary believes (sic) delays in land administration, arbitrary application of the public interest criteria, constraining inheritance laws and uncertainty regarding the strategies for dealing with land pressures have all operated to discourage needed investment

and the nation’s ability to eliminate poverty and pursue social harmony.118

And in response to a question from a member of Parliament on land ‘acquisition’ in favour of the land deprived, the Minister said:

Frankly speaking, [...] we acquired that [land] by willing seller/willing buyer. […]

This land will definitely be reprocessed on its own to get people […] those who are really pressed to be resettled at this place. But, the only model is that we are not going to resettle everybody and create no farms. It will be a model that will create homes, houses and then be able to make the same land more productive.

[W]hen there is any land and a willing seller/willing buyer […] we will buy more and more land that is under-utilized and land being given for sale in order to resettle Malawians.119

against the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.’ The member argued that wanton expropriation would not attract foreign investors: See the contribution of Honourable Louis J Chimango, member of

Parliament for Lilongwe Mpenu (Malawi Congress Party) in Government of Malawi Proceedings of

Parliament, 30th Session, 2nd Meeting, 24th October–11th November, 1994 (Zomba: Government Printer, 1994) 633.

117 _{Government of Malawi Proceedings of Parliament, 30}th _{Session, 2nd Meeting, 24}th _October–11th November, 1994 (Zomba: Government Printer, 1994) 554.

118

Government of Malawi Proceedings of Parliament, 35th Session, 2nd Meeting, (Lilongwe:

Government Printer, 2002) 7.

The constitutional order of 1994 provides a framework for an analysis of the turn around on the initial campaign promise regarding the land question. The discussion on the nature of the constitutional order and its implications for land reform in the country follows in the next section.